RES-2016-030RESOLUTION NO. 2016-030
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 2013-00348 AND ADOPTING
FINDINGS OF FACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM NO. 312, AND A WATER SUPPLY
ASSESSMENT FOR THE ANAHEIM CANYON
SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED ACTIONS.
(DEV2011-00125)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Canyon encompasses approximately 2,600 acres in the
northern portion of the City of Anaheim, roughly bounded on the north by Orangethorpe
Avenue, on the south by the Santa Ana River, on the east by Imperial Highway (SR -90), and on
the west by the Orange Freeway (SR -57); and
WHEREAS, in 1989, the Anaheim City Council approved the PacifiCenter Anaheim
Specific Plan No. 88-3 (the "SP 88-3 Specific Plan") together with zoning and development
standards applicable to the SP 88-3 Specific Plan area that are set forth in Chapter 18.106
(PacifiCenter Anaheim Specific Plan No. 88-3 (SP88-3) Zoning and Development Standards)
(the "SP 88-3 Zone") of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") to guide development of a
mixed use center that would include offices, retail, restaurants and a hotel with supporting
services to encourage transit use and facilitate business operations on approximately 26 acres,
located south of La Palma Avenue, west of Tustin Avenue, north of the Riverside Freeway (SR -
91) and east of the Metrolink rail line; and
WHEREAS, in 1995, the Anaheim City Council approved the Northeast Area Specific
Plan No. 94-1 (the "SP94-1 Specific Plan") together with zoning and development standards
applicable to the SP 94-1 Specific Plan area that are set forth in Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area
Specific Plan No. 94-1(SP94-1) Zoning and Development Standards) (the "SP 94-1 Zone") of the
Code to provide for a wide variety of industrial and commercial uses within an area generally
consistent with the Anaheim Canyon, excluding properties within the SP88-3 Specific Plan area;
and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the City of Anaheim was awarded a grant from the California
Strategic Growth Council to prepare a Specific Plan for Anaheim Canyon to replace the
development requirements of the existing zoning on the properties in this area, remove
regulatory obstacles to the reuse of existing structures, promote infill development of currently
vacant or underutilized properties, encourage sustainable development, and create a business
environment attractive to a wide variety of industries; and
WHEREAS, staff has initiated the preparation of a proposed Specific Plan for the
establishment of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Area in the form presented to this Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, staff determined that several properties outside of the SP94-1 Specific Plan
Area should also be included within the boundaries of the proposed Anaheim Canyon Specific
Plan Area because they have uses that are similar to the uses on adjacent properties within the
SP94-1 Specific Plan Area, which additional properties include commercial properties located
east of SR -90, properties adjacent to and including the Santa Ana River, and property located
southwest of the intersection of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line and Tustin Avenue,
currently designated for industrial use; and
WHEREAS, there are currently approximately 27.9 million square feet of non-residential
buildings within the boundaries of the proposed Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Area. Formation
of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Area in accordance with the proposed Specific Plan would
result in the potential to develop an additional 19.6 million square feet of non-residential building
area; and
WHEREAS, there are currently 312 multi -family residential units in the Transit Core
Area (Development Area 4) of the SP94-1 Zone. Formation of the Anaheim Canyon Specific
Plan Area would result in the potential to develop an additional 2,607 multi -family residential
units within Development Area 3: Transit -Oriented Area of the proposed Anaheim Canyon
Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, a series of actions is required to establish a Specific Plan for the Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan Area (collectively, the "Proposed Actions"), including:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 2014-00492 to amend the Land Use, Circulation,
Green, Economic Development, and Community Design Elements of the General Plan of the
City of Anaheim to be consistent with the proposed Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-
01; and
2. Specific Plan Amendment No. 2014-00065 to rescind PacifiCenter Anaheim Specific
Plan No. 88-3 and Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1, and to adopt the Anaheim Canyon
Specific Plan No. 2015-1; and
3. Zoning Code Amendment No. 2014-00115 to amend Title 18 (Zoning) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code to (a) rescind Chapter 18.106 (PacifiCenter Anaheim Specific Plan
No. 88-3 (SP 88-3) Zoning and Development Standards) and Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area
Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP 94-1) Zoning and Development Standards), (b) adopt Chapter 18.120
(Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-01 (SP 2015-01) Zoning and Development
Standards), and (c) amend other portions of the Anaheim Municipal Code to be consistent with
the addition of said new Chapter 18.120; and
4. Reclassification No. 2014-00262 to apply the zoning and development standards of
the proposed new Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-01 (SP 2015-01)
Zoning and Development Standards) to those properties within the Anaheim Canyon Specific
Plan Area that are currently classified under the SP 88-3 Zone, the SP 94-1 Zone, the "I"
Industrial Zone, the "C -G" General Commercial Zone, the "T" Transition Zone, and the Scenic
Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone.
2
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as
"CEQA"), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA
Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency for the preparation and consideration of
environmental documents for the Proposed Actions; and
WHEREAS, in September, 2013, City Council approved a contract with Placeworks
(formerly The Planning Center DC&E) to prepare Environmental Impact Report No. 2013-00348
("Draft EIR No. 348") for the Proposed Actions; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for Draft EIR No. 348 was distributed to
the public on October 28, 2013. The public review period for the initial study ended on
November 27, 2013. The City held a public scoping meeting on November 12, 2013 to provide
members of the public with an opportunity to learn about the Proposed Actions and to ask
questions and provide comments about the scope and content of the information to be addressed
in Draft EIR No. 348; and
WHEREAS, Draft EIR No. 348 was made available for a 45 -day public review period
from May 28, 2015 to July 13, 2015. The Notice of Availability ("NOA"), which also included
noticing for the Planning Commission public hearing and a tentative date for the City Council
public hearing, was sent to a list of interested persons, agencies and organizations, as well as
property owners within the proposed Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Area and within a 300 -foot
radius thereof. The Notice of Completion ("NOC") was sent to the State Clearinghouse in
Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County
Clerk -Recorder's office on May 28, 2015. Copies of Draft EIR No. 348 were made available for
public review at the City of Anaheim Planning Department and has been available for download
via the City's website; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Water Code Section 10910, Draft EIR No.
348 includes a Water Supply Assessment ("WSA") dated October 2014 as Appendix J, which
concludes that a sufficient water supply and its reliability is and will be available for the
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with Sections 15132 and 15362(b) of the CEQA Guidelines,
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 2013-00348 (herein referred to as "Final EIR No. 348")
will consist of Draft EIR No. 348, the comments and recommendations received on Draft EIR
No. 348 (either verbatim or in summary), a list of persons, organizations and public agencies that
submitted comments on Draft EIR No. 348, the responses of the City, as lead agency, to
significant points raised in the review and consultation process, the Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 312 prepared
for the Proposed Actions. A complete copy of Final EIR No. 348 is on file and can be viewed in
the Anaheim Planning and Building Department and on the project website at
www.anaheim.net/anaheimcanyon. Final EIR No. 348 is identified on the webpage as "Final
Environmental Impact Report"; and
3
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim
(hereinafter referred to as "Planning Commission") did hold a public hearing, which was
continued to October 5, 2015 and, due to a lack of a quorum on that date, continued again to
October 19, 2105, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and
testimony concerning the contents and sufficiency of Draft EIR No. 348 and for and against the
Proposed Actions, and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, after due inspection, investigation and studies made by itself and in its
behalf and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, the
Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. PC2015-083 on October 19, 2015,
recommending that this City Council approve and adopt the WSA and certify Final EIR No. 348;
and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of the Planning Commission's Resolutions Nos. PC2015-083,
PC2015-084, PC2015-085, PC2015-086 and PC2015-087, a summary of evidence, report of
findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council did fix the 26a' day
of January 2016, as the time, and the City Council Chamber in the Civic Center, as the place, for
a public hearing for the purpose of considering Final EIR No. 348 and the Proposed Actions; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, the City Council did conduct a public hearing, notice
of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against Final EIR
No. 348 and the Proposed Actions and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith;
and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence and reports received at said public hearing, and
upon the studies and investigation made by itself and in its behalf, the City Council finds and
determines as follows:
1. Final EIR No. 348 has been presented to and independently reviewed and considered
by the City Council;
2. Final EIR No. 348 reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council;
3. Final EIR No. 348 has been processed and completed in compliance with the
requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual;
and
4. Final EIR No. 348 is adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the
Proposed Actions.
WHEREAS, in conformance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and
the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City has prepared, or caused to be prepared, the
(i) "CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan", which is attached hereto
S
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, and (ii)
Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 312, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated
herein by this reference as though set forth in full; and
WHEREAS, to the extent authorized by law, the City desires and intends to use Final
EIR No. 348 as the environmental documentation required by CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and
the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual for the Proposed Actions; and
WHEREAS, this City Council determines that the evidence in the record constitutes
substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that
the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including
testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials
in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from
the findings made in this Resolution. This City Council expressly declares that it considered all
evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented
to it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby certifies Final
EIR No. 348 and approves and adopts the WSA, the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit A, and Mitigation Monitoring Program
312, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Anaheim this 2 6 day of January , 2016, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Tait and Council Members Kring, Murray, Brandman,
and Vanderbilt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTES .
md,—
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF A15NAHEIM
113077v4/TJR
5
CITY OF HEIM
MAYOR OF THE dITY OF ANAHEIM
EXHIBIT "A"
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN
[Behind this page.]
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2013101087
Exhibit A
I. BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a number of written findings be
made by the lead agency in connection with certification of an environmental impact report (EIR)
prior to approval of the project pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This document provides the findings required by
CEQA.
A. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan (ACSP) Project would update and consolidate two specific plans
(the Northeast Area Specific Plan and the PacifiCenter Anaheim Specific Plan) and the Scenic
Corridor Overlay Zone, as it relates to Anaheim Canyon, into one new specific plan. The Northeast
Area Specific Plan currently guides development for most of the industrial area in Anaheim Canyon,
and the PacifiCenter Anaheim Specific Plan covers approximately 26 acres at the southwest corner of
La Palma and Tustin Avenues.
The ACSP is funded by the Sustainable Communities Planning Grant (Proposition 84) awarded to
the City by the State of California's Strategic Growth Council (SGC). Various community meetings,
outreach, workshops, and surveys have taken place with the Anaheim Canyon Advisory Group,
partner agencies, and elected and appointed officials to provide input into the vision for the Anaheim
Canyon.
The goal of the ACSP is to encourage sustainable development and create a business environment
attractive to a wide variety of industries, especially high tech, green, and new energy businesses. The
ACSP is anticipated to remove obstacles to the reuse of existing structures and promote infill
development of currently vacant or underutilized properties. It would also facilitate and encourage
use of non -vehicular transportation by improving the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station and
providing sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails. The ACSP would promote the use of sustainable building
systems through a variety of zoning, building, and utilities incentives, and would serve as a green
development guide. The Draft ACSP may be viewed on the project webpage at
www.anaheirn.net/anaheimcanyon.
At buildout, the ACSP would allow for the redevelopment of existing uses, resulting in
approximately 47 million square feet of non-residential land use and 2,919 dwelling units, as shown in
Table 1-1. There are currently approximately 27.9 million square feet of non-residential buildings in
the ACSP area, and the Proposed Project would result in an additional 19.6 trillion square feet of
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 1 -
non-residential building area. All of the residential units would be within Development Area 3 (DA
3), Transit Oriented Development Area, and there are 312 existing multi -family residential units in
the DA 3.
Table 1.1 Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Development Statistical Summary
Non Residential
Development Area
Total
Acreage
Maximum
FAR
Existing Building
Area (Square Feet)
Maximum Buildout
(Square Feet)
Increase/Change
DA1 (Industrial)
1,377.43
0.50
21,770,6291
30,000,590.56
8,229,961.56
DA2 (Recycling)
88.72
0.50
700,267
1,932,298.72
1,232,031.72
DA3 (Transit Oriented)
48.65
3.00
1 589,0492
6,357,881.45
5,360,574.45
DA4 (Local Commercial)
63.94
0.45
1,563,364
1,253,273.05
-310,090.95
DA5 (General Commercial)
142.07
0.50
2,171,054
3,094,207.52
923,153.52
DA6 (Open Space/Water Area)
821.61
0.10
10,571
3,578,922.13
3,568,351.13
DA7 (Flex Area)
58,15
0.50
1,101,222
1,266,452.88
165,230.88
Total
2,600.57
27,906,156
47,483,626.31
19,577,470.31
Residential
I It excludes the 11,695 square feet of single-family residential dwelling units to account only for the non-residential area.
2 It excludes the 408,258 square feet of multi -family residential dwelling units to account only for the non-residential area.
Proposed Amendments
Approval of the ACSP would require amendments to the General Plan, zoning text and zoning map,
and Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Together,
the ACSP, proposed amendments, and their implementation constitute the "Project" for purposes of
the CEQA. Below is a description of the proposed amendments to each of these documents.
■ GPA2014-00492: Amend the General Plan Land Use, Circulation, Green, Economic
Development, and Community Design Elements to provide consistency with the Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan, including but not limited to changes in land use, expanding the description
of the Water Use land use category to allow certain non -water uses within Anaheim Canyon, a
new "Complete Streets Connector" roadway classification, changing references to the Project
Area from "The Canyon" to "Anaheim Canyon," and modifications to Anaheim Canyon
bikeways and trails. No substantive changes to General Plan Goals or Policies are proposed.
■ SPN2014-00065: Rescind the PacifiCenter Anaheim and Northeast Area Specific Plans and
adopt the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan.
■ ZCA2014-00115: Amend Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to (a) rescind
Chapter 18.106 (PacifiCenter Anaheim Specific Plan No. 88-3 (SP88-3) Zoning and
Development Standards) and Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP94-1)
Zoning and Development Standards), (b) adopt Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 2 -
Maximum
Total
Dwelling
Existing Dwelling
Maximum Buildout
Development Area
Acreage
Units/Acre
Units
(Dwelling Units)
Difference
DA3 (Transit Oriented)
48.65
60
312
2,919
2,607
I It excludes the 11,695 square feet of single-family residential dwelling units to account only for the non-residential area.
2 It excludes the 408,258 square feet of multi -family residential dwelling units to account only for the non-residential area.
Proposed Amendments
Approval of the ACSP would require amendments to the General Plan, zoning text and zoning map,
and Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA) Master Plan of Arterial Highways. Together,
the ACSP, proposed amendments, and their implementation constitute the "Project" for purposes of
the CEQA. Below is a description of the proposed amendments to each of these documents.
■ GPA2014-00492: Amend the General Plan Land Use, Circulation, Green, Economic
Development, and Community Design Elements to provide consistency with the Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan, including but not limited to changes in land use, expanding the description
of the Water Use land use category to allow certain non -water uses within Anaheim Canyon, a
new "Complete Streets Connector" roadway classification, changing references to the Project
Area from "The Canyon" to "Anaheim Canyon," and modifications to Anaheim Canyon
bikeways and trails. No substantive changes to General Plan Goals or Policies are proposed.
■ SPN2014-00065: Rescind the PacifiCenter Anaheim and Northeast Area Specific Plans and
adopt the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan.
■ ZCA2014-00115: Amend Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to (a) rescind
Chapter 18.106 (PacifiCenter Anaheim Specific Plan No. 88-3 (SP88-3) Zoning and
Development Standards) and Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1 (SP94-1)
Zoning and Development Standards), (b) adopt Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 2 -
No. 2015-01 (SP 2015-01) Zoning and Development Standards), and (c) amend other portions
of the Anaheim Municipal Code to be consistent with the addition of the new Chapter 18.120.
■ RCL2014-00262 Apply the zoning and development standards of the proposed new Chapter
18.120 to those properties within the Anaheim Canyon that are currently classified under the SP
88-3 Zone, the SP 94-1 Zone, the "I" Industrial Zone, the "C -G" General Commercial Zone,
the "T" Transition Zone, and the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Anaheim CEQA
Guidelines, the City of Anaheim conducted an extensive environmental review of the Proposed
Project.
■ The City determined that an ETR would be required for the Proposed Project and issued a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) on October 28, 2013. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15060(d) and 15063 that allow leady agency to skip preparation of an Initial Study and begin
work directly on the EIR process, a NOP was issued without accompanying Initial Study. The
public review period for the NOP extended from October 28, 2013, to November 27, 2013. A
scoping meeting was held on November 12, 2013.
■ The scope of the DEIR was determined based on the Environmental Checklist Form,
comments received in response to the NOP and comments receiving from the Scoping Meeting.
Section 2.2 of the DSEIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the DEIR.
■ The DEIR eliminated detailed analysis of Agriculture/Forestry Resources and Cultural
Resources topical areas in Chapter 5, Environmental Analysis, of the DEIR, and substantiated in
Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to be Sign of the DEIR.
■ The City prepared a DEIR, which was made available for a 45 -day public review period
beginning May 28, 2015, and ending July 13, 2015.
■ The City prepared a Final FIR (FEIR), including the Responses to Comments to the DEIR, the
Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The FEIR/Response to
Comments contains comments on the DEIR, responses to those comments, revisions to the
DEIR, and appended documents. The City also prepared a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the impacts found to be significant and unavoidable (air quality, greenhouse
emissions (GHG), noise, and transportation/traffic).
■ The City held public hearings on the Proposed Project during the regular Planning Commission
meeting on August 24, 2015, which was continued to October 5, 2015, and due to lack of
quorum on that date, continued again to October 19, 2015; and, the City Council meeting on
January 26, 2016.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 3 -
C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project
consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
■ The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed
project
■ The DEIR for the proposed project
■ All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review
comment period on the DEIR
■ All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
public review comment period on the DEIR
■ The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments
■ All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the
proposed project
■ The FEIR for the proposed project
■ All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and
FEIR
■ The Mitigation Monitoring Program
■ The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents
incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment
period and responses thereto
■ Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local
laws and regulations
■ Any documents expressly cited in these Findings
■ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6(e)
D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions
related to the Proposed Project are at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim
Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805. The Planning Department is the custodian of the
administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of
proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 4 -
of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e).
H. FINDINGS AND FACTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Anaheim, as lead agency, is required under CEQA to make written findings concerning
each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the DEIR and FEIR.
Specifically, regarding findings, Guidelines Section 15091 provides:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental
effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written
findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief
explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the FEIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives
identified in the FEIR.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the
finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with
identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in
subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified
mitigation measures and project alternatives.
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall
also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it
has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid
or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures
must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other
measures.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 5 -
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the
documents or other material which constitute the record of the
proceedings upon which its decision is based.
(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the
findings required by this section.
The "changes or alterations" referred to in Section 15091(a)(1) may include a wide variety of
measures or actions as set forth in Guidelines Section 15370, including:
(a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
(b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation.
(c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted
environment.
(d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
(e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources
or environments.
III. FINDINGS AND FACTS REGARDING IMPACTS
A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Initial Study
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d) and 15063 that allow leady agency to skip
preparation of an Initial Study and begin work directly on the EIR process, a NOP was issued
without accompanying Initial Study. All topical areas of evaluation included in the Environmental
Checklist were determined to require further assessment in an EIR.
Final EIR
This section identifies impacts of the proposed project determined to be less than significant without
implementation of project -specific mitigation measures.
The DEIR concluded that all or some of the impacts of the Proposed Project with respect to the
following issues either will not be significant or will be reduced to below a level of significance by
implementing existing regulations and standard .conditions as detailed in Chapter 5 of the DEIR.
Those issues include: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, and
Utilities and Service Systems.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 6 -
As described in Chapter 8 of the DEIR, the City concluded that project impacts related to the
following issues would be less than significant: Agriculture and Forestry Resources and Cultural
Resources.
1. Aesthetics
Impact 5.1-1: The Proposed Project would not adversely impact any scenic vista or damage scenic
resources within a state scenic highway.
Impact 5.1-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.1-2: The Proposed Project would not degrade the visual quality of the project area.
Impact 5.1-2 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.1-3: The Proposed Project would not have adverse light and glare impacts adjacent to
sensitive uses.
Impact 5.1-3 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
2. Biological Resources
Impact 5.3-5: The Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy ordinance.
Impact 5.3-5 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.3-6: The Proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan.
Impact 5.3-6 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
3. Geology and Soils
Impact 5.4-1: Project residences, occupants, visitors, etc. would be subjected to potential seismic -
related hazards.
Impact 5.4-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.4-2: Unstable geologic unit or soils conditions, including soil erosion, could result due to
development of the Proposed Project.
Impact 5.4-2 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.4-3: Soil conditions could result in risks to life or property.
Impact 5.4-3 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.4-4: Soil conditions may not adequately support proposed septic tanks.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 7 -
Impact 5.4-4 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.5-2: The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan would not conflict with plans adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions
Impact 5.5-2 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 5.6.1: Implementation of ACSP would not result in additional use of hazardous materials
within the project boundaries; and adhering to the existing review and permitting process and
compliance with all applicable programs would ensure that hazardous materials do not pose a
significant environmental impact.
Impact 5.6-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.6-2: The Project Area includes facilities that are included on hazardous materials sites lists
compiled by various government agencies, however, adhering to federal, state, regional, and local
regulations that govern hazardous materials and waste management would ensure that impacts would
not be significant.
Impact 5.6-2 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.6-3: The Project Site is not located in the vicinity of an airport or within the jurisdiction of
an Airport Land Use Plan.
Impact 5.6-3 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.6-4: Project development would not adversely affect the implementation of an emergency
response or evacuation plan.
Impact 5.6-4 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.6-5: The Project Area is not within a designated fire hazard zone that could expose
structures and/or residences to wildlife fire danger.
Impact 5.6-5 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
6. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 5.7-1: Development pursuant to the Proposed Project could increase the amount of
impervious surfaces on the site and could therefore increase surface water flows and the potential for
erosion and siltation and exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain systems.
Impact 5.7-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.7-2: Development pursuant to the Proposed Project increases the amount of impervious
surfaces on the site and would therefore impact opportunities for groundwater recharge.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 8 -
Impact 5.7-2 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.7-3: During the construction phase of the Proposed Project, there is the potential for
short-term unquantifiable increases in pollutant concentrations from the site. After project
development, the quality of storm runoff (sediment, nutrients, metals, pesticides, pathogens, and
hydrocarbons) may be altered.
Impact 5.7-3 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.7-4: The Proposed Project would not result in any flooding safety impacts due to placing
structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area.
Impact 5.7-4 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.7-5: The Project Site is located within the inundation area of Prado Dam and Carbon
Canyon Dam.
Impact 5.7-5 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.7-6: The Proposed Project would not result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Impact 5.7-6 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
7. Land Use and Planning
Impact 5.8-1: Project implementation would not divide an established community.
Impact 5.8-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.8-2: Project Implementation would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating and environmental effect.
Impact 5.8-2 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.8-3: The Proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans.
Impact 5.8-3 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
8. Mineral Resources
Impact 5.9-1: Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource.
Impact 5.9-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
9. Noise
Impact 5.10-3: Buildout of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan would not cause a substantial noise
increase related to traffic on local roadways in the City of Anaheim.
Impact 5.10-3 was detenYuned to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 9 -
Impact 5.10-5: Noise -sensitive uses could be exposed to elevated noise levels from stationary
sources.
Impact 5.10-5 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.10-6: The proximity of the Project Site to an airport or airstrip would result in exposure of
future resident and/or workers to airport -related noise.
Impact 5.10-6 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
10. Population and Housing
Impact 5.11-1: The Proposed Project would directly result in population growth in the Project Area.
Impact 5.11-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.11-2: Project implementation would not result in displacement of housing or people.
Impact 5.11-2 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
11. Public Services
Impact 5.12-1: The Proposed Project would result in additional structures and population in the
Anaheim Fire and Rescue service boundaries, thereby increasing the demands for fire protection
facilities and personnel.
Impact 5.12-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.12-2: The Proposed Project would introduce new structures and population into the
Anaheim Police Department service boundaries, thereby increasing the requirement for police
protection facilities and personnel.
Impact 5.12-2 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.12-3: The Proposed Project would generate new students and create additional school
facilities demands.
Impact 5.12-3 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.12-4: An increase in library services due to the Proposed Project would not result in
significant and adverse impacts.
Impact 5.12-4 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.12-5: The Proposed Project would increase the service needs for local daycare facilities.
Impact 5.12-5 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations _10-
12. Recreation
Impact 5.13-1: The Proposed Project would increase demands on existing parks and recreational
facilities but would not result in adverse physical environmental impacts.
Impact 5.13-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
13. Transportation/Traffic
Impact 5.14-4: The Proposed Project would not result in hazardous condition to air traffic patterns.
Impact 5.14-4 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.14-5: The Proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (sharp curves, etc.) or conflicting uses.
Impact 5.14-5 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.14-6: The Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Impact 5.14-6 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.14-7: The Proposed Project complies with adopted policies, plans, and programs for
alternative transportation.
Impact 5.14-7 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
14. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 5.15-1: The Proposed Project would not result in exceedance of the treatment capacity at
Orange County Sanitation treatment plant to require construction of new or expanded wastewater
treatment facilities.
Impact 5.15-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.15-3: The Proposed Project would provide adequate water facilities improvements within
the ACSP area.
Impact 5.15-3 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.15-4: The Proposed Project would be served by sufficient water supplies without
procurement of additional water entitlements.
Impact 5.15-1 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.15-5: Existing solid waste facilities would be able to accommodate project -generated solid
waste and comply with related solid waste regulations.
Impact 5.15-5 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.15-6: The Proposed Project would be served by adequate electrical service.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Impact 5.15-6 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
Impact 5.15-7: Existing gas services would be able to accommodate project -generated gas demands.
Impact 5.15-7 was determined to be less than significant and no finding is necessary.
B. IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following summary describes impacts of the Proposed Project that, without mitigation, would
result in significant adverse impacts. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures provided in
the EIR, these impacts would be considered less than significant.
1. Air Quality
Impact 5.2-5: The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan could site sensitive land uses in proximity to
major air pollution sources.
The ACSP area contains or is in proximity to various sources of pollution. State Route 91
(SR -91) runs along the southwestern portion of the plan area and traverses within the
southern portion of the site between Tustin Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. State Route 57
(SR -57) borders the plan area's western boundary. There are no roadways with daily roadway
volumes of 100,000 or more either within or near the plan's boundaries. A Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)/Metrolink rail line runs along a portion of the northern
boundaries of the plan area with the Metrolink Inland Empire—Orange County Line
bisecting the ACSP area. These lines serve both commuter and freight trains. In addition to
the rail line, the ACSP contains a rail yard in the adjacent area south of SR -91. There are also
multiple South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)-permitted land uses
within and near the ACSP area that may generate stationary or mobile sources of toxic air
contaminants (IACs). Major SCAQMD-permitted sources include the Canyon Power Plant,
Exxon Mobil Storage Terminal, City of Anaheim Combined Turbine Generating Station,
and the SA Recycling facility. The SA Recycling facility is an auto body shredding operation
and is adjacent to the rail yard. Under the ACSP, development of new residential land uses
would be permitted in proximity to existing and future industrial uses. Additionally, new
residential land uses could also potentially be sited near SR -91, SR -57, and the existing rail
line. Therefore, air quality compatibility impacts for new sensitive land uses are potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure was included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and is applicable to the
Proposed Project. The measure as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the FEIR.
AQ -10 Prior to issuance of building permits for new residential developments, the property
owner/developer shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the Planning
Department.
The property owner/developer shall submit a HRA to the Planning Department. The
HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State of
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -12-
If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred
thousand (1.0E-05), PM concentrations would exceed 2.5 µg/m3, or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the following is required prior to issuance of
building permits:
a) The HRA shall identify the level of high -efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting
Value (MERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to
achieve the cancer and/or noncancer threshold.
b) Installation of high efficiency MERV filters in the intake of residential ventilation
systems consistent with the recommendations of the HRA, shall be shown on plans.
Heating, air conditioning, and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a
fan unit designed to force air through the MERV filter.
c) To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV filters in the
individual units, the property owner/developer shall record a covenant on the
property that requires ongoing implementation of the actions below. The form of
the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation.
1. The property owner/developer shall provide notification to all future tenants or
owners of the potential health risk for affected units and the increased risk of
exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open.
2. For rental units, the property owner/developer shall maintain and replace
MERV filters in accordance with the manufacture's recommendations.
3. For ownership units, the Homeowner's Association shall incorporate
requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and
Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the
MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measure AQ -10 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to
air quality to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a) (1); Guidelines § 15091(1)]
Impact 5.2-7: Industrial land uses associated with buildout of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan
have the potential to create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people.
Industrial Uses
Growth within the ACSP Area could generate new sources of odors and place sensitive
receptors near existing sources of odors. Industrial land uses, including waste recycling and
material recovery uses and facilities in DA 2, have the potential to generate objectionable
odors. Industrial land uses associated with the Proposed Project would be required to
comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance. However, additional measures may be
necessary to prevent an odor nuisance. Therefore, industrial land uses associated with the
ACSP may generate a potentially significant odor impact to a substantial number of people.
Residential and Commercial Uses
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -13-
Residential and commercial land uses could result in generation of odors such as exhaust
from landscaping equipment. However, unlike industrial land uses, these land uses are not
considered potential generators of odor that could affect a substantial number of people.
Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from residential and commercial land
uses associated with the ACSP are considered less than significant
Construction
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt
and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction -related odor
emissions would be temporary and intermittent in nature. Additionally, noxious odors would
be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such
emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of
air quality concern. Furthermore, short-term construction -related odors are expected to
cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor -producing materials. Therefore, impacts
associated with construction -generated odors are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure was included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and is applicable to the
proposed project. The measure as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the FEIR.
AQ -11 For projects located within 1,000 feet of an industrial facility that emits substantial
odors, which includes but is not limited to:
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Composting, greenwaste, or recycling facilities
• Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
• Painting/coating operations
• Large -capacity coffee roasters
• Food-processing facilities
The property owner/developer shall submit an odor assessment to the Planning
Director prior to approval of any future discretionary action that verifies that the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has not received three or more
verified odor complaints. If the Odor Assessment identifies that the facility has received
three such complaints, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that
Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing
potential odors to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.
T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, scrubbers at the industrial facility, or
installation of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters rated at 14 or better
at all residential units..
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measure AQ -11 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to
air quality to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code �21081(a)(1); Guidelines � 15091(1)]
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -14-
2. Biological Resources
Impact 5.3-1: Portions of the Project Area contain suitable habitat for a number of sensitive species.
The Project Area contains wetland and aquatic habitats that are potentially suitable for a
number of sensitive species. These include the Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), a
federally listed fish species, and southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida),
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus
fallax)—all of which are California Species of Concern. The potentially suitable habitat areas
for these species are in areas designated Open Space under the General Plan and maintained
as Open Space/Water in the proposed ACSP. Despite these areas being heavily disturbed,
there are patches of vegetation that could support sensitive species and thus could directly
affect sensitive species. Moreover, the Proposed Project looks to increase bicycle and
pedestrian mobility via two proposed bikeways that would cross the Santa Ana River at two
separate locations in the Project Area. This could affect patches of vegetation and modify
habitat used by sensitive species. The Project Area also contains a small patch of disturbed
coastal sage scrub community with low potential to support sensitive species.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures were included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and are applicable to
the proposed project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the FEIR.
BIO -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for any project that occurs within the areas
identified as having potential for the occurrence of special plant communities and
sensitive species as shown in Figure 5.3-1, Areas with Potential for Sensitive Species and Plant
Communities, the property owner/developer shall submit a biological survey prepared by
a qualified biologist. The biological survey shall assess potential impacts to wildlife
movement and identify any impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, including
coastal sage scrub, riparian, wetland, and open water habitats. The property
owner/developer shall be required to restore and revegetate where the loss of small
and/or isolated habitat patches is proposed, and maintain existing wildlife movement
opportunities.
BIO -2 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, whichever occurs first,
construction activity is set to occur during nesting season (typically between February 1
and July 1), the property owner/developer shall be required to conduct nesting bird
surveys in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements,
and submit said surveys to the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Such surveys
shall identify avoidance measures to protect active nests.
BIO -3 Prior to issuance of building permits, for projects with new lighting located adjacent to
natural areas, the property owner/developer shall submit a lighting plan indicating that
the proposed lighting has been designed to prevent artificial lighting from reflecting into
adjacent natural areas.
BIO -4 Prior to preliminary design of any bridge crossing the Santa Ana River, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a jurisdictional delineation of the potential disturbance area at
locations where construction activity could affect jurisdictional waters. The jurisdictional
delineation shall determine if features are under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The result shall be a
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -15-
preliminary jurisdictional delineation report that shall be submitted to the City of
Anaheim and any responsible agency, ACOS, R\X7QCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, for
review and approval. Based on the results of the preliminary jurisdictional delineation,
bridge design shall be completed so that impacts to jurisdictional waters are minimized
in consultation with the ACOS, RWQCB, and CDFW. After final design but prior to
construction, permits shall be obtained from each agency where applicable.
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measures BIO -1 through BI0-4 are feasible and finds that these mitigation measures will reduce the
impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code �21081(a)(1);
Guidelines § 15091(1)]
Impact 5.3-2: Project implementation may impact riparian and other sensitive habitats in the Project
Area.
Sensitive vegetation communities in the Project Area include areas of riparian vegetation and
wetlands in the Santa Ana River and lakes areas. The Santa Ana River lakes, Kraemer Basin,
Miraloma Basin, and Anaheim Lake contain open water habitat that is used by migratory and
resident waterfowl and other bird species, principally for foraging. Kraemer Basin and
Miraloma Basin are recharge basins that have relatively steep sandy or rocky banks with
sparse ruderal vegetation on disturbed flatlands around the their peripheries. The Proposed
Project would include recreational trails and seating for bicyclists and pedestrians around
Kraemer Basin, Anaheim Lake, and Warner Basin. Despite these areas being heavily
disturbed, there are patches of vegetation that could support sensitive species, and thus
could directly affect sensitive species. Moreover, the Proposed Project looks to increase
bicycle and pedestrian mobility via two proposed bikeways that would cross the Santa Ana
River at two separate locations in the Project Area. This too could affect patches of sensitive
riparian vegetation and modify habitat used by sensitive species.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure was included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and is applicable to the
proposed project. The measure as provided includes any revisions incorporated in the FEIR.
BIO -5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for projects potentially affecting riparian or
wetland habitat, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence that all necessary
permits have been obtained from the California Department of Fish And Wildlife
(pursuant to Section 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code) and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or that no such permits
are required, in a manner meeting the approval of the City of Anaheim Planning
Department. Should a Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers be
required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification would also be obtained from the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measure BIO -5 is feasible and fords that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -16-
biological resources to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a)(1); Guidelines
15091(1)]
Impact 5.3-3: Project implementation may have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The Proposed Project permits conversion of approximately 10.8 acres of irrigated and
inaccessible turf into California -friendly planting with trails and seating areas around
Kraemer Basin, Anaheim Lake, and Warner Basin. Furthermore, it looks to increase bicycle
and pedestrian mobility via two proposed bikeways that would cross the Santa Ana River at
two separate locations in the Project Area. This could affect patches of wetlands and
sensitive riparian vegetation used by sensitive species.
Mitigation Measures:
See Mitigation Measure BIO -5.
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measure BIO -5 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to
biological resources to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code �21081(a)(1); Guidelines
15091(1)]
Impact 5.3-4: Project implementation could impact the ability of migratory waterfowl to use
Kraemer Basin, Miraloma Basin, and Anaheim Lake.
The Project Area does not have any regionally significant wildlife movement corridors, but
does include an approximately 3.6 -mile section of the Santa Ana River that contains fish
resources and is used by for foraging by waterfowl migrating along the Pacific Flyway. The
Santa Ana River is designated Open Space/Water under the ACSP, and there would be no
conversion of habitats in the river and no substantial increases of indirect impacts such as
night-time lighting and noise. The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly impact
fisheries of the Santa Ana River. However, development intensity has been proposed for
Development Area 6, which includes Kraemer Basin, Miraloma Basin, and Anaheim Lake.
Any development within these areas could impact migratory waterfowl.
Mitigation Measures:
See Mitigation Measure BI0-1 through BIO -4.
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measures BIO -1 through BIO -4 are feasible and finds that these mitigation measures will reduce the
impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code �21081(a)(1);
Guidelines 5 15091(1)]
3. Noise
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -17-
Impact 5.10-2: Buildout of the individual land uses and projects for implementation of the Anaheim
Canyon Specific Plan would expose sensitive uses to strong levels of groundborne vibration.
Transportation -Related Vibration Impacts
According to Caltrans, heavy trucks and buses generate the highest earthborn vibrations of
normal traffic and the highest traffic -generated vibrations are along freeways and state
routes. However, typically, trucks do not generate high levels of vibration because they travel
on rubber wheels and do not have vertical movement, which generates ground vibration.
Transportation -related vibration impacts are not considered excessive.
Railroad Vibration Impacts
Currently there are several passenger and freight trains operated by Amtrak, Metrolink, and
BNSF that pass through the Specific Plan area on weekdays and weekends. It is anticipated
that the number of daily trains would more than double from current activity, as shown in
Table 5.10-7 of the DEIR. This proposed increase in rail traffic would not increase the
maximum vibration levels at nearby uses, but it would increase the number of vibration
occurrences. The increase in frequency of daily rail trips would not result in the generation
of excessive vibration.
Implementation of the Specific Plan may add new sensitive uses in areas adjacent to the
railroad line, including additional residential units in the vicinity of the Anaheim Canyon
Metrolink Station. These developments many result in placing residential uses near the
railroad line which could result in excessive groundbome vibration from train operations.
The proposed residential uses will require a conditional use permit; at such time additional
project -specific environmental analysis will be required. Potential exposure to groundborne
vibration is significant.
Industrial Vibration Impacts
The use of heavy equipment associated with industrial operations can create elevated
vibration levels in its immediate proximity. New heavy industrial uses in the Specific Plan
area would have the potential to cause vibration impacts to existing and future planned
nearby residential uses. Without mitigation, this would be a significant impact.
Construction Vibration Impacts
As shown in Table 5.10-8 of the DEIR, vibration generated by construction equipment has
the potential to be substantial, since it has the potential to exceed the FTA Criteria for
human annoyance of 78 VdB and structural damage of 0.200 in/sec. However, groundborne
vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors, so it is usually evaluated in
terms of indoor receivers. Vibration impacts may occur from construction equipment
associated with development in accordance with the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. This
would be a significant impact
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures were included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and are applicable to
the proposed project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the FEIR.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations - 18 -
N-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, if new vibration -sensitive land uses are located
within 200 feet of any railroad line, the property owner/developer shall retain an
acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that includes a vibration analysis for
potential impacts from vibration generated by operation of the rail line. Mixed use
buildings shall be designed to eliminate vibration amplifications due to resonances of
floors, walls, and ceilings. The detailed analysis shall be submitted to the Planning
Department prior to issuance of building permits and shall show that the vibration levels
would be below 72 VdB, which is Federal Transit Administration's nighttime criteria to
regulate vibration impacts to affected residential uses.
N-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for projects involving development of new
industrial uses within 200 feet of any existing residential use or Development Area 3, the
property owner/developer shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic
analysis that includes a vibration analysis for potential impacts from vibration generated
by industrial activities. The detailed analysis shall be submitted to the Planning
Department showing that the vibration levels to any nearby residential use would be
below 78 VdB during the daytime (7 AM to 10 PM) and 72 VdB during the nighttime
(10 PM to 7 AM), which is the Federal Transit Administration's nighttime criteria to
regulate vibration impacts to affected residential uses.
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measures N-3 and N-4 are feasible and finds that these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts
related to noise to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code �21081(a)(1); Guidelines � 15091(1)]
Impact 5.10-4: Noise -sensitive uses could be exposed to elevated noise levels from transportation
sources.
Trafc Noise
The noise contours are influenced by vehicular traffic (passenger cars and trucks) speeds,
and truck routes. These contours do not account for noise attenuation provided by
intervening structures or topographical barriers. Residential land uses located immediately
adjacent to the SR -91 and adjacent to the segments of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue
would be the most impacted by traffic noise. Areas immediately adjacent to Tustin Avenue
and La Palma Avenue could be exposed to noise levels ranging from 76 to 78 dBA CNEL.
Areas immediately adjacent to the freeway could be exposed to noise levels in excess of 80
dBA CNEL. Residential common open space areas such as playgrounds, swimming pools,
and picnic areas are noise -sensitive areas that could be affected by elevated noise levels.
Without appropriate mitigation, sensitive outdoor uses could be developed in areas of excess
of 65 dBA CNEL. As typical construction provides an exterior -to -interior noise reduction of
approximately 20 dBA, interior levels could be greater than 45 dBA CNEL without
mitigation.
Bail Noise
The only noise -sensitive uses located in proximity to the rail lines are residential uses in the
DA 3. All other uses adjacent to the rail lines are industrial and commercial, and these are
not considered noise -sensitive uses. The current rail activity is expected to double from
current conditions and rail noise contours were calculated for 2035 conditions. The at -grade
crossing at La Palma Avenue has been certified as a quite zone, where improvements at the
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations _19-
grade crossing allow the train conductor to not blow the train's warning horns prior to
reaching the railroad crossing. Nonetheless, residents within DA3 would be exposed to noise
levels of approximately 62 dBA CNEL within 100 feet from the railroad track. The extent of
the exposure to noise depends on site-specific conditions and location of buildings.
Therefore, further environmental review would be required as residential development is
proposed. Any siting of new noise -sensitive land uses within a noise environment that
exceeds the normally acceptable land use compatibility criterion represents a potentially
significant impact and would require a separate noise study to determine the level of impacts
and required mitigation. Although compliance with Policies 3 to 7 from Goal LI of the
General Plan Noise Element would encourage proper site planning to reduce potential noise
impacts from transportation sources to noise -sensitive receptors, it cannot be guaranteed
that all receptors would comply with the applicable exterior and interior noise standards.
Therefore, without mitigation, this would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measure was included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and is applicable to the
proposed project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the FEIR.
N-5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project property owner/developers shall
submit a final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
The report shall show that the development will be sound -attenuated against present
and projected noise levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter, stationary sources
(e.g., industrial, commercial, etc.), and railroad, to meet City interior standards as
follows:
a) The report shall demonstrate that the proposed residential design will result in
compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the
California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24
and 25 of the California Code of Regulations).
b) The report shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project residential design shall
minimize nighttime awakening from train horns such that interior single -event
noise levels are below 81 dBA
The property owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning
Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical
design features shall be incorporated into construction of the Proposed Project.
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measures N-5 is feasible and finds that this mitigation measure will reduce the impacts related to
noise to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code §21081(a) (1); Guidelines § 15091(1)]
4. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 5.15-2: The City's existing sewer collection facilities are inadequate to handle the projected
increase in flow from the Proposed Project at buildout.
According to the sewer capacity study prepared for the Proposed Project, all sewer lines
within the ACSP Area, under the existing conditions, are currently operating at acceptable
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -20-
levels and would continue to operate at acceptable levels at General Plan buildout
conditions. The Proposed Project would result in a total sewer generation of 4.74 million
gallons per day (mgd) at buildout, as shown in Table 5.15-1 of the DEIR, compared to the
4.03 mgd adjusted Combined East Anaheim Area Master Plan of Sanitary Sewers
(CEAAMPSS) flow. This is an approximately 17.6 percent increase above the adjusted flow
projected in the CEAAMPSS, primarily due to the additional intensification in DA3.
Pipeline Capacity Analysis
City Facilities
Figure 5.15-1, Deficient Server Segments atACSP Buildout, of the DEIR depicts the overall sewer
collection system. The pipeline segments exceeding d/D criteria for peak flow at buildout of
the ACSP Area shown in red. There are a total of 48 deficient segments. Appendix A of the
sewer capacity study (included as Appendix H to DEIR) provides detailed figures showing
manhole numbers and highlights in red any pipe segments that exceed the City's criteria for
d/D ratio, which are 0.67 for pipes 10 inches in diameter and smaller and 0.75 for pipes 12
inches in diameter and larger. Therefore, these pipeline segments would require close
monitoring as development intensification proceeds in the areas upstream or tributary to
these sewer segments, so that it can be determined if and when the capacity becomes
deficient, as appropriate.
OCSD Facilities
The maximum design capacity of Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) line such as
the Atwood Sub -Trunk and the Newhope-Placentia/Orangewood Basin, is 0.75 d/D.
OCSD's latest sewer model shows that the sewer at this lines is currently over capacity.
OCSD currently has a project (Project No. 2-72) in plans to increase the size of the
Newhope-Placentia Trunk Line to increase capacity. Because no design has been completed,
anticipated maximum capacity within the upsized line cannot be determined by OCSD at
this time, and no additional flows would be accepted in this line until the completion.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures were included in the DEIR and the FEIR, and are applicable to
the proposed project. The measures as provided include any revisions incorporated in the FEIR.
USS -1 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permits, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall submit plans to the City Engineer for review. The City
Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is an area served by
potentially deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated sewer study for the
ACSP. If the project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the
appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to
an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the
property owner/developer shall perform additional sewer analysis using flow, wet -
weather data, and other information specific for the project to determine the surcharge
levels for final design. The property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee
mitigation of the impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and City Attorney's Office, which could include additional related fees,
construction, or a combination thereof.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -21-
USS -2 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the
property owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as
required by the City Engineer, to prevent the sewer surcharge in the public system from
back -flowing into below -grade structures of the proposed development based upon the
latest updated sewer study for the ACSP. Where requested by the City Engineer, sewer
improvements shall be constructed with larger than recommended diameter to maintain
the surcharge levels within the pipe, and the invert elevation of sewer laterals shall be
located above the hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels when the invert
elevation of sewer laterals are above the pipe crown.
USS -3 Prior to the approval of any street improvement plans within the ACSP that encompass
area(s) where Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) will be upsizing trunk lines
and/or are making other improvements, the property owner/developer shall coordinate
with OCSD to ensure that backflow prevention devices are installed at the lateral
connections to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties. Proof of such
coordination, such as a letter from OCSD affirming review of proposed plans, shall be
provided by the property owner/developer to the City prior to approval of the street
improvement plans.
Finding:
The City of Anaheim finds based on the Final EIR and the whole of the record that Mitigation
Measures USS -1 through USS -3 are feasible and finds that these mitigation measures will reduce the
impacts related to utility services to a less than significant level. [Pub. Res. Code 521081(a)(1);
Guidelines § 15091(1)]
C. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
The following summary describes the unavoidable adverse impact of the Proposed Project where
either mitigation measures were found to be infeasible, or mitigation would lessen impacts to less
than significant. The following impact would remain significant and unavoidable:
1. Air Quality
Impact 5.2-1: Construction activities associated with implementation of the Anaheim Canyon
Specific Plan would generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's regional construction thresholds
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as onsite
heavy-duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor
vehicles transporting the construction crew. Construction activities would temporarily
increase coarse inhalable particulate matter (PMlo), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), and
carbon monoxide (CO) regional emissions within the Southern California Air Basin
(SoCAB). Construction activities associated with buildout of the ACSP are anticipated to
occur sporadically over an approximately 20 -year period or longer. An estimate of maximum
daily construction emissions is provided in Table 5.2-8, Estimate of Re
ional Construction
Emissions, of the DEIR. As shown in Table 5.2-8, construction activities associated with the
project could potentially exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOC and NOx. The
primary source of NOx emissions is vehicle and construction equipment exhaust. NOx is a
precursor to the formation of both ozone (03) and particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5)•
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -22-
VOC is produced by equipment exhaust and off -gas of architectural coatings and paving.
VOC is a precursor to the formation of 03. Project -related emissions of VOC and NOx
would contribute to the 03, NO2, PMlo, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the
SoCAB. Therefore, project -related construction activities would result in significant regional
air quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building plans, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall provide a note on plans indicating that ongoing during
grading and construction, contractors will use equipment that meets the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -Certified emissions standards according to the
following schedule.
a) From the end of 2011 to December 31, 2014, all project -related off-road diesel -
powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet Tier 3
off-road emissions standards. Any emissions control device used by the
contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could
be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized
engine, as defined by California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations.
b) After January 1, 2015, all off-road diesel -powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the Tier 4 Final emission standards. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions
reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 4 diesel
emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB
regulations.
AQ -2 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building plans, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to
be used on the project site. This list may be provided on the building plans. The
construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of the
equipment; that the equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance
with the manufacturer's recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of
construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with
California Air Resources Board's Rule 2449.
AQ -3 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building plans, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall submit a dust control plan that implements the
following measures during ground -disturbing activities, in addition to the existing
requirements for fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rule 403, to further reduce PMlo and PM2.5 emissions:
a) Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish
ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering.
b) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets
with Rule 1186—compliant, PMlo-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is
carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
c) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a
minimum 24 -inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -23-
materials and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the
same amount of protection.
d) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water
exposed ground surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours
on the construction site and a minimum of three times per day.
e) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite
vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour.
The Building Division shall verify compliance during normal construction site
inspections.
AQ -4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide a
note on plans indicating that:
a) All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content
lower than required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints).
b) All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-
pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds
per square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2)
manual application using a paintbrush, hand -roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag,
or sponge, to achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.
c) The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural colored building
materials, where feasible.
The Building Division shall verify compliance during normal construction site
inspections.
Finding:
Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -4 are feasible and would reduce criteria air pollutants
generated from short-term construction activities to extent feasible. However, even with mitigation
there is a potential for multiple development projects to occur at any one time, resulting in significant
construction -related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through
AQ -4, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is required.
Impact 5.2-2: Long-term criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the Anaheim Canyon
Specific Plan would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's regional operational
significance thresholds.
Buildout of the ACSP would result in direct and indirect criteria air pollutant emissions from
transportation, energy (natural gas use), and area sources (e.g., natural gas fireplaces,
aerosols, landscaping equipment). The results of the CalEEMod modeling for transportation
sources of criteria air pollutant emission based on a net increase of 157,062 average daily
trips are included in Table 5.2-9, Maximum Daily Operational Phare Emissions, of DEIR. As
shown in this table, operation of the project at buildout would generate air pollutant
emissions that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO,
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -24-
PMlo, and PM2.5 at buildout. Emissions of VOC and NOx that exceed the SCAQMD
regional threshold would cumulatively contribute to the 03 nonattainment designation of the
SoCAB. Emissions of NOx that exceed SCAQMD's regional significance thresholds would
cumulatively contribute to the 03, particulate matter (PMlo and PM2.5), and NO2
nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. Emissions of PM,o and PM2.5 would contribute
to the PM,o and PM2.5 nonattainment designations. Therefore, the project would result in a
significant impact because it would significantly contribute to the nonattainment
designations of the SoCAB.
Mitigation Measures:
Stationary Source
AQ -5 Prior to issuance of building permits, for residential development, the property
owner/developer shall provide a note on building plans that indicates that all shared
community barbeques will be electric powered barbeque units. These units shall be
verified on site by the Building Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
AQ -6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall show on
plans that all applicant -provided appliances be Energy Star appliances (dishwashers,
refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be
verified by the Building Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Transportation and Motor Vehicles
AQ -7 Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction of residential development,
the property owner/developer shall indicate on plans that garage and/or car port
parking are electrically wired to accommodate a Level 2 (240 volt) electric vehicle
charging. The location of the electrical outlets shall be specified on building plans, and
proper installation shall be verified by the Building Division prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
AQ -8 Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction of non-residential
development of 100,000 building square feet or more, the property owner/developer
shall indicate on plans that Level 2 vehicle charging stations will be provided for public
use, and where feasible, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City of
Anaheim to install Level 3 (480 volt or higher) charging stations. The location of the
charging station(s) shall be specified on building plans, and proper installation shall be
verified by the Building Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 from Section 5.14, Transportation and Trak, as listed below,
would also reduce criteria pollutants from transportation and motor vehicles.
T-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
generating 50 or more employees, the property owners/ developer shall complete the
following steps below to develop, implement and administer a comprehensive
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.
a) The property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public
Works Department, for review and approval, a comprehensive TDM program
that includes a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing
and future employees' commute options.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -25-
b) The property owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that
requires ongoing implementation of the approved TDM program and
designation of an on-site contact that will be responsible for coordinating the
TDM program.
c) The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior
to recordation.
T-2 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
generating 50 or more employees, the property owner/developer shall join and
financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established. The property
owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that requires participation in
the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation.
T-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
generating 50 or more employees, the property owner/developer shall participate in the
Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN)/Transportation Management Association.
The property owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that requires
ongoing participation in the program and designation of an on-site contact that will be
responsible for coordinating and representing the project with the ATN. The form of
the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation.
Finding:
Mitigation Measures AQ -5 through AQ -8 are feasible and would reduce long-term operation -related
air pollutants generated from stationary and mobile sources to extent feasible. Mitigation Measures
T-1 through T-3, in addition to Mitigation Measures AQ -7 and AQ -8 would encourage and
accommodate use of alternative -fueled vehicles and nonmotorized transportation. However, despite
implementation of mitigation measures, due to the magnitude of land use development associated
with the Proposed Project, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement
of Overriding Considerations is required.
Impact 5.2-3: Construction activities related to buildout of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan
could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Table 5.2-8 of the DEIR provides an estimate of the magnitude of criteria air pollutant
emissions generated by the project for each construction subphase. Buildout of the ACSP
would occur over a period of approximately 20 years or longer and would comprise several
smaller projects with their own construction timeframe and construction equipment.
Concentrations of criteria air pollutants generated by a project depend on the emissions
generated onsite and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, a localized
significance thresholds (LST) analysis can only be conducted at a project -level, and
quantification of LSTs is not applicable for this program -level environmental analysis.
Because potential redevelopment could occur close to existing sensitive receptors, the
project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Construction equipment exhaust combined with fugitive particulate matter
emissions has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of
criteria air pollutant emissions and result in a significant impact.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -26-
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure AQ -1 through AQ -4.
Finding:
Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -4 are feasible and would reduce the project's localized
construction -related criteria air pollutants and regional construction emission. However, because
existing sensitive receptors may be close to project -related construction activities, construction
emissions generated by individual projects have the potential to exceed SCAQMD's LSTs. As a
result, Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is required.
Impact 5.2-4: Onsite operational -related emissions associated with industrial land uses within the
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant
concentrations.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
Land uses that have the potential to be substantial stationary sources that would require a
permit from SCAQMD for emissions of TACs include industrial land uses, such as chemical
processing facilities, chrome -plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline -dispensing facilities.
Emissions of TACs would be controlled by SCAQMD through permitting and would be
subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air
quality permits under SCAQMD Rule 1401. The permitting process ensures that stationary
source emissions would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds of 10 in a million
cancer risk and 1 for acute risk at the maximally exposed individual.
However, area sources (e.g., onsite truck idling and ancillary offroad equipment) associated
with a facility (permitted and non -permitted) would be outside of the scope of Rule 1401.
Emissions of TACs from mobile sources when operating at a property are regulated by
statewide rules and regulations, not by SCAQMD and have the potential to generate
substantial concentrations of air pollutants. Because the nature of those emissions cannot be
determined at this time and they are subject to further regulation and permitting, they will
not be addressed further in this analysis but are considered a potentially significant impact of
the Proposed Project.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)
In addition to stationary/area sources of TACs, new warehousing operations could generate
a substantial amount of DPM emissions from off-road equipment use and truck idling. DPM
accounts for approximately 84 percent of the excess cancer risk in the SoCAB (SCAQMD
2008a). New land uses in the ACSP area that use trucks, including trucks with transport
refrigeration units, and rail activities could generate an increase in DPM that would
contribute to cancer and noncancer health risk in the SoCAB. These new land uses could be
near to existing sensitive receptors within and outside the of the ACSP area. In addition,
trucks would travel on regional transportation routes through the SoCAB, contributing to
near -roadway DPM concentrations. Therefore, health risk impacts from development of
industrial land uses are considered potentially significant.
CO Hot Spot Analysis
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -27-
Under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a project would have to increase traffic
volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour—or 24,000 vehicles
per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a
significant CO impact (BAAQMD 2011). The Proposed Project would not produce the
volume of traffic at any one intersection required to generate a CO hot spot. Therefore, CO
hot spots are not an environmental impact of concern for the Proposed Project. Localized
air quality impacts related to CO hot spots would therefore be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Review of projects by SCAQMD for permitted sources of air toxics would ensure health risks are
minimized. The following mitigation measure would ensure that DPM emissions not covered under
SCAQMD permits are addressed:
AQ -9 Prior to issuance of building permits for new industrial or warehousing projects that
meets the following criteria:
a) Have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40
or more trucks with operating diesel -powered transport refrigeration units
(TRUs), and
b) Are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals,
nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the
property line of the nearest sensitive use.
The property owner/developer shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the
Planning Department. The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and
procedures of the State of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred
thousand (1.0E-05), PM concentrations would exceed 2.5 µg/m3, or the appropriate
noncancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and
demonstrate that best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of
reducing potential cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including
appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to,
restricting idling onsite or electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate
matter, or requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles. The property
owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that requires ongoing
implementation of T-BACTs identified in the HRA. The form of the covenant shall be
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation.
Finding:
Mitigation Measure AQ -9 is feasible and would reduce area and mobile sources of TACs not covered
under SCAQMD permits. However, while Mitigation Measure AQ -9 would control risks impacts of
individual projects, the incremental increase in health risks associated with individual projects would
contribute cumulatively to already elevated levels of cancer health risks in the SoCAB. Therefore,
Impact 5.2-4, as it related to cumulative TAC emissions, would remain significant and unavoidable,
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -28-
Impact 5.2-6: The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan is a regionally significant project that would
contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations in the South Coast Air
Basin and would conflict with the assumptions of the applicable Air Quality Management Plan.
Per CEQA Guideline Section 15206, the Proposed Project is considered regionally
significant by SCAG because it would result in the development of over 500 residential
dwelling units and 250,000 square feet of commercial office space. Changes in the
population, housing, or employment growth projections associated with this project have the
potential to substantially affect Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG)
demographic projections and therefore the assumptions in SCAQMD's air quality
management plan (AQMP). The Proposed Project would increase the land use intensity
within the ACSP area, resulting in a large increase in population growth and employment in
the plan area. Additionally, the Proposed Project would require a general plan amendment to
accommodate the change in land uses. Because regional transportation modeling is based on
the underlying general plan land use designation, the project could potentially change the
assumptions of the AQMP.
The Proposed Project would be consistent with the regional goals of integrating land uses
near a major transportation corridor with the creation of DA 3. This planning subarea would
permit residential mixed-use developments to utilize the existing Anaheim Canyon Metrolink
Station and SR -91. The ACSP would also seek improvements to bike and pedestrian
pathways and an improvement to overall connectivity to public transit. In addition,
development of residential and nonresidential land uses in proximity to each other in
addition to public transportation options would likely reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
and associated criteria air pollutant emissions from mobile sources. However, despite
furthering the regional transportation and planning objectives to reduce per capita VMT and
associated emissions, the project would represent a substantial increase in emissions
compared to existing conditions and would exceed SCAQMD's regional operational
significance thresholds (see Table 5.2-9 of the DEIR). As a result, the Proposed Project
could potentially exceed the assumptions in the AQMP and would not be considered
consistent with the AQMP. Consequently, impacts would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
See Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -8.
Finding:
Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -8, which are applied for Impact 5.2-1 and Impact 5.2-2, are
feasible and would reduce the project's regional construction -related and operational phase criteria air
pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, given the potential increase in growth and
associated increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, the Proposed Project would continue to be
potentially inconsistent with the assumptions in the AQMP. As a result, Impact 5.2-6 would remain
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.5-1: Development of all of the proposed land uses within the Anaheim Canyon Specific
Plan would result in a substantial increase of GHG Emissions that would exceed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District's proposed efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2, due to the magnitude of
GHG Emissions associated with the proposed project.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -29-
Mitigation Measures:
See Mitigation Measures AQ -5 through AQ -8 and T-1 through T-3.
Finding:
Mitigation Measures AQ -5 through AQ -8 would further reduce GHG emissions from stationary and
mobile sources to the extent feasible. Additionally, Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would also
encourage and accommodate use of alternative -fueled vehicles and nonmotorized transportation.
However, due to the magnitude of GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project, Impact
5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is
required.
3. Noise
Impact 5.10-1: Construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of
the Project Site.
As shown in Table 5.10-6 of the DEIR, construction equipment generates high levels of
noise with maximums ranging from 71 dBA to 101 dBA. Construction of individual
developments associated with implementation of the ACSP would temporarily increase the
ambient noise environment and would have the potential to affect noise -sensitive land uses
in the vicinity of an individual project. The City of Anaheim Municipal Code Section
6.70.010, noise sources associated with construction or building repair are exempt from the
City Sound Pressure Level standards between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Approval to
conduct these activities beyond this time periods must be pre -approved by the Director of
Public Works or Building Official through a written request.
Significant noise impacts may occur from operation of heavy earthmoving equipment and
truck haul that would occur with construction of individual development projects.
Implementation of the ACSP anticipates an increase in development intensity. Most of the
Project Site is currently developed as industrial, office and commercial uses. However,
several noise -sensitive receptors such as residences, hospitals, hotels, and schools are located
within the Project Site and along its boundaries. Construction of individual developments
associated with implementation of the ACSP would temporarily increase the ambient noise
environment in the vicinity of each individual project, existing and future sensitive uses
mostly affected would be the ones located in the transit center area in the vicinity of the
Anaheim Canyon train station, and residences north of Orangethorpe Avenue. Because
construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise -
sensitive receptors and depending on the project type noise disturbances may occur for
prolonged periods of time, construction noise impacts associated with implementation of the
ACSP are considered significant.
Mitigation Measures:
N-1 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer
shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to
limit construction -related noise:
Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours between 7 AM to 7 PM, as
prescribed in the City's Municipal Code
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -30-
• All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted
with properly maintained mufflers.
• Stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as
feasible from nearby noise -sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive receptors
• Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes established by the City of
Anaheim.
N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any project requiring pile driving or blasting
during construction, the property owner/developer shall prepare a noise and vibration
analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these
activities. The maximum levels shall not exceed 0.2 inches/second, which is the level
that can cause architectural damage for typical residential construction. If maximum
levels would exceed these thresholds, alternative uses such static rollers, non -explosive
blasting, and drilling piles as opposed to pile driving shall be used.
Finding:
Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 are feasible and would reduce temporary construction noise
impacts to extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to
sensitive uses and potential longevity of construction activities, Impact 5.10-1 (construction noise)
would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
4. Transportation/Traffic
Impact 5.14-1: The ACSP would result in significant intersection peak hour impacts under the
Existing 2013 Plus Project scenario.
Intersection Levels of Service — Existing 2013 Plus Project Scenario
The level of service (LOS) analysis was performed for all of the 86 study intersections in
accordance with the City of Anaheim and the Orange County congestion management plan
(CMP) traffic study guidelines. The results indicate that four out of the 86 study intersections
are projected to operate at LOS E or F during one or both of the analyzed peak hours.
City of Anaheim Impact Criteria
The intersections that are projected to have significant transportation impacts under the
Existing 2013 Plus Project scenario are the following 26 study intersections:
■ #1 State College Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave — AM Peak Hour
■ #5 State College Blvd / La Palma Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #6 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #8 Sunkist St/Miraloma Ave / La Palma Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #9 Sunkist St / Lincoln Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #11 SR -57 NB Ramps / Orangethorpe Ave — PM Peak Hour
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -31 -
■ #15 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #16 Melrose St / Orangethorpe Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #17 Blue Gum St / Miraloma Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #21 Kraemer Blvd / Crowther Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #22 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave — AM Peak Hour
■ #24 Kraemer Blvd / Miraloma Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #26 Kraemer Blvd / La Palma Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #29 Glassell St / Frontera St — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #32 Miller St / Miraloma St — PM Peak Hour
■ #36 Grove St / La Palma Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #39 Tustin Ave / Miraloma Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #42 Tustin Ave / Pacificenter Dr — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #57 Lakeview Ave / La Palma Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #58 Lakeview Ave / Riverdale Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #59 Lakeview Ave / SR -91 WB Ramps — AM Peak Hour
■ #60 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd — AM Peak Hour
■ #66 Cinema City / La Palma Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #73 Imperial Hwy / La Palma Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #76 Imperial Hwy / Santa Ana Canyon Rd — AM Peak Hour
■ #84 Santiago Blvd / SR -55 NB Ramps — AM Peak Hour
HCM Methodology LOS
The results from the highway capacity manual (HCM) analyses, shown in Table 5.14-11 of
the DEIR, indicate that three out of the 28 study intersections analyzed are projected to
operate at LOS E or worse during one or both of the analyzed peak hours.
Roadway Segment Analysis — Existing 2013 Plus Project Scenario
City of Anaheim Impact Criteria
Roadway segment analysis was performed for 89 arterial segments in the Traffic Study Area
for the weekday daily roadway volumes under the Existing 2013 Plus Project scenario. The
results indicate that out of the 89 study arterial segments, 7 segments are projected to
operate at LOS D, E or F as shown in Table 5.14-12 of the DEIR. And the results from the
arterial peak hour LOS segment analyses indicate that out of the total seven study segments
analyzed, three segments are projected to operate at LOS E or F during the AM and/or PM
peak hours.
■ #36 Lakeview Avenue, southbound from La Palma Avenue to Santa Ana Canyon
Road (LOS E — PM Peak Hour)
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -32-
#72 Santa Ana Canyon Road, eastbound and westbound from Lakeview Avenue to
Nohl Ranch Road (Eastbound: LOS E — AM Peak Hour, LOS F — PM Peak Hour;
Westbound: LOS E — AM and PM Peak Hours)
#81 Tustin Avenue, southbound from La Palma Avenue to SR -91 (LOS E — AM and
PM Peak Hours)
Mitigation Measures:
T-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
generating 50 or more employees, the property owners/developer shall complete the
following steps below to develop, implement and administer a comprehensive
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.
a) The property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public
Works Department, for review and approval, a comprehensive TDM program
that includes a menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing
and future employees' commute options.
b) The property owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that
requires ongoing implementation of the approved TDM program and
designation of an on-site contact that will be responsible for coordinating the
TDM program.
c) The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior
to recordation.
T-2 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
generating 50 or more employees, the property owner/developer shall join and
financially participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established. The property
owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that requires participation in
the program ongoing during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation.
T-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
generating 50 or more employees, the property owner/developer shall participate in the
Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN)/Transportation Management Association.
The property owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that requires
ongoing participation in the program and designation of an on-site contact that will be
responsible for coordinating and representing the project with the ATN. The form of
the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation.
T-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property
owner/developer shall pay all applicable transportation impact fees to the City of
Anaheim in amounts determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of
issuance of the building permit with credit given for City -authorized improvements
provided by the property owner/developer; and participate in all applicable
reimbursement or benefit districts which have been established.
T-5 Prior to issuance of building permits for any project forecast to generate 100 or more
peak hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing
Anaheim Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -33-
shall submit to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager traffic improvement
phasing analyses to identify when the improvements identified in the Anaheim Canyon
Specific Plan EIR Traffic Impact Study, Iteris, September 2014 (Appendix G of this
DEIR) shall be designed and constructed:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing,
funding, construction and fair -share responsibilities for all traffic
improvements necessary to maintain satisfactory levels of service within
the City of Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions, as defined by the
City's General Plan, based on thresholds of significance, performance
standards and methodologies utilized in EIR No. 348, Orange County
Congestion Management Program and established in City of Anaheim
Traffic Study Guidelines.
b) The property owner/developer shall construct, bond for or enter into a
funding agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as
determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. At
minimum, fair -share calculations shall include intersection
improvements, rights-of-way, and construction costs, unless alternative
funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement.
T-6 Prior to first final building and zoning inspection, in conjunction with the preparation of
any traffic improvement phasing analyses required by Mitigation Measure T-5, the
property owner/developer shall implement traffic improvements to maintain
satisfactory levels of services, as identified in the project traffic improvement phasing
analysis.
T-7 Prior to issuance of building permits, in conjunction with the preparation of any traffic
improvement phasing analyses required by Mitigation Measure T-5, the property
owner/developer and the City of Anaheim shall take the following actions in
cooperation with the Cities of Orange, Fullerton and Placentia:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts
created by the project on facilities within the Cities of Orange,
Fullerton or Placentia.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall calculate the fair -share
percentage responsibility for mitigating these impacts.
c) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project's fair -share
responsibility in cooperation with the Cities of Orange, Fullerton and
Placentia.
d) The property owner/developer shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair -
share cost prior to issuance of a building permit.
e) The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then,
once a mutually agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities,
the City of Anaheim shall allocate the fair -share contribution to traffic
mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow at the impacted
locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to both cities.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -34-
T-8 Prior to issuance of building permits, in conjunction with the preparation of any traffic
improvement phasing analyses required by Mitigation Measure T-5, the property
owner/developer and the City of Anaheim shall take the following actions in
cooperation with Caltrans:
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify the project's
proportionate impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway
ramp locations.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall determine the property
owner/developer's fair -share percentage responsibility for mitigating
project impacts based on thresholds of significance, performance
standards and methodologies utilized in EIR No. 348 and established in
the Orange County Congestion Management Program and City of
Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines.
c) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall determine if a regional
transportation agency has programmed and funded the warranted
improvements to the impacted freeway mainline or freeway ramp
locations
d) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project's fair -share
responsibility in cooperation with Caltrans.
e) The property owner/developer shall pay the City of Anaheim the
identified fair -share responsibility as determined above.
f) The City shall allocate the property owners/ developers fair -share
contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in improved
traffic flow on the impacted mainline and ramp locations, via an
agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and the City of Anaheim.
g) Future traffic improvement phasing analyses for Caltrans facilities shall
utilize the latest adopted HCM Methodology. In addition, proposed
intersection modifications within Caltrans right-of-way shall be
consistent with Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02:
Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE).
Finding:
Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-8 would reduce impacts to all intersections
and segments to operate at acceptable levels of service. All impacted intersections that are located in
the City of Anaheim and require operational improvements would be reduced to a less than
significant level. However, as shown in Table 5.14-21 and 5.14-22 of the Draft EIR, although
recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of reasons such as the
inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve existing businesses,
environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although cost estimates have
not been completed at this time, it is anticipated that a number of improvements would be
economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of some of the improvements. Inasmuch as the
primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of
Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange, Caltrans), there is
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -35-
the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not
completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot
undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction). Should that occur, the
project's traffic impact would remain significant. As a result, Impact 5.14-1 would remain significant
and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Impact 5.14-2: The Proposed Project would result in significant intersection and arterial peak hour
impacts and roadway segment impacts under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus
Project scenario compared to the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout scenario.
Intersection Levels of Service — Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Scenario
The Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout scenario was analyzed for the 86 Traffic
Study Area intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
City ofAnaheim Impact Criteria
The City of Anaheim Circulation element establishes that all intersections should be LOS D
or better. The results of the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout scenario analyses
shown in Table 22 of the Traffic Study included in Appendix G of this DEIR indicate that
four out of the total 86 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or F during
one or both of the analyzed peak hours. The four study intersections operating at LOS E of
F under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout scenario are:
■ #6 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #15 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #60 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd — AM Peak Hour
■ #77 Batavia St / Lincoln Ave — AM Peak Hour
Each of the intersections projected to experience deficient LOS was analyzed in an effort to
identify potential improvements. The results of the intersection analysis with the
improvements listed below are presented in Table 26 of the Traffic Study (Appendix G of the
DEIR). With improvements, these intersections would operate at acceptable LOS D or
better under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout scenario.
■ # 6 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave — Add SBR overlap phase
■ #15 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave — Add NBR overlap phase, add one EBR, add a 2nd
WBL
■ #60 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd — Reconfigure EB approach to 2 lefts, 1
shared thru-left and 1 shared thru-right, change EB/WB to split phase
■ #77 Batavia St / Lincoln Ave — Reconfigure EB approach to 2 lefts, 2 thrus, 1
shared thru-right, 1 right
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -36-
HCM Methodology LOS - Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Scenario
All of the unsignalized traffic study intersections as well as the signalized study intersections
under the jurisdiction of Caltrans were also evaluated using the HCM 2000 methodology.
The results from the HCM analyses indicate that one of the 30 study intersections analyzed
is projected to operate at LOS E or worse during PM peak hours as below.
ID
Intersection
Control
Jurisdiction
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
28
Kraemer Blvd / SR -91 EB Ramps
Unsignalized
Anaheim
24.4 C 144.6 F
-intersection controueo oy uaitrans.
Intersection Levels of Service — Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus
Project Scenario
The Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project traffic operating conditions were
analyzed at the 86 study area intersections for the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
City of Anaheim Impact Criteria
Per the City of Anaheim Impact Criteria, an intersection impact is deemed significant when
the final intersection LOS is at E or F with implementation of a project. According to the
LOS and V/C results, 12 study intersections are projected to have significant impacts under
the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project scenario:
■ #6 State College Blvd / Lincoln Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #9 Sunkist St / Lincoln Ave — AM Peak Hour
■ #15 Rio vista St / Lincoln Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #22 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave — AM Peak Hour
■ #24 Kraemer Blvd / Miraloma Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #26 Kraemer Blvd / La Palma Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #41 Tustin Ave / La Palma Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #42 Tustin Ave / Pacificenter Dr — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #57 Lakeview Ave / La Palma Ave — AM and PM Peak Hours
■ #58 Lakeview Ave / Riverdale Ave — PM Peak Hour
■ #60 Lakeview Ave / Santa Ana Canyon Rd — AM Peak Hour
■ #77 Batavia St / Lincoln Ave — AM Peak Hour
City of Fullerton Impact Criteria
There are two study intersections that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Fullerton. The
analysis shows that both study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS
under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Plus Project scenario.
■ #1 State College Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave — no impact
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -37-
#7 Placentia Ave / Orangethorpe Ave — no impact
Ciy of Orange Impact Criteria
There are eight study intersections that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Orange. The
analysis shows that one study intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS level
under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project scenario.
#77 Batavia St / Lincoln Ave (LOS F — AM Peak Hour)
City of Placentia Impact Criteria
There are 13 study intersections that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Placentia. The
analysis shows that one study intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable LOS level
under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project scenario.
■ #22 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave (LOS E — AM Peak Hour)
HCM Methodology LOS
All of the unsignalized study intersections as well as the signalized study intersections under
the jurisdiction of Caltrans were also evaluated using the HCM 2000 methodology. The
results from the HCM analyses indicate that one of the 30 study intersection analyzed is
projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the Forecast Year 2040
General Plan Buildout Plus Project scenario as shown below.
ID
Intersection
Control
Jurisdiction
AM Peak PM Peak
—Delay I LOS Delay LOS
28
Kraemer Blvd / SR -91 EB Ramps
Unsignalized
Anaheim
1 25.5 1 D 173.8 F
Roadway Segment Analysis — Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project
Scenario
City of Anaheim Impact Criteria
The Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project weekday daily roadway segment
volumes, V/C ratios, and levels of service were evaluated. The results indicate that out of the
89 study arterial segments, 80 segments are projected to operate at LOS C or better, and
nine segments are projected to operate at LOS D, E or F. The nine study arterial segments
projected to operate at LOS E or F under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout
Plus Project scenario are shown in Table 5.14-17 of the DEIR. For arterial segments that are
projected to operate at LOS D or worse under daily conditions, AM and PM peak hour LOS
segment analyses were conducted to determine whether deficiencies occur under the peak
periods. The results from the arterial peak hour LOS segment analyses indicate that out of
the total nine study segments analyzed, six segments are projected to operate at LOS E or F
during the AM and/or PM peak hours. The six segments projected to operate at LOS E or F
under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project scenario are:
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -38-
■ #36 Lakeview Avenue, southbound from La Palma Avenue to Santa Ana Canyon
Road to— Southbound (LOS E — AM and PM Peak Hours)
■ #39 Lincoln Avenue, eastbound from Sunkist Street to SR -57 (LOS E — AM Peak
Hour)
■ #40 Lincoln Avenue, eastbound from SR -57 to Rio Vista Street (LOS E — AM Peak
Hour)
■ #81 Tustin Avenue, southbound from La Palma Avenue to SR -91 — (LOS E — AM
Peak Hour)
■ #82 Tustin Avenue, southbound from Jefferson Street to La Palma Avenue — (LOS
F — AM Peak Hour)
■ #84 Tustin Avenue, northbound and southbound from Miraloma Avenue to
Orangethorpe Avenue (Northbound: LOS E — AM Peak Hour; Southbound: LOS F
— PM Peak Hour)
Mitigation Measures:
See Mitigation MeasuresT-1 through T-8.
Finding:
Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-8 would reduce impacts to all intersections
and segments to operate at acceptable levels of service. However, as shown in Table 5.14-22 and
5.14-23, although recommended, not all identified improvements are feasible due to a number of
reasons such as the inability to undertake right-of-way acquisitions as a matter of policy to preserve
existing businesses, environmental constraints, or jurisdictional consideration. In addition, although
cost estimates have not been completed at this time, it is anticipated that a number of improvements
would be economically infeasible due to the anticipated costs of some of the improvements.
Inasmuch as the primary responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements
located outside of Anaheim lies with an agency other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., City of Orange,
Caltrans), there is the potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such
improvements are not completed for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control (e.g., the City of
Anaheim cannot undertake or require improvements outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction). Should that
occur, the project's traffic impact would remain significant. As a result, Impact 5.14-2 would remain
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
Impact 5.14-3: The Proposed Project would result in potentially significant traffic impacts to
freeway facilities.
Freeway Analysis — Existing 2013 Plus Project Scenario
All freeway segments in the Traffic Study Area are currently operating at LOS D or better
during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the following segments
shown below. As with the Existing 2013 (without the project) scenario, all of the freeway
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -39-
segments operating at LOS E and F are along the SR -91 corridor. To address the existing
congestion and operating issues along the SR -91 corridor, OCTA has recently awarded a
PA/ED for SR -91 between Lakeview Ave interchange and SR -57 to address widening needs
and further assess the operation levels of the SR -91.
#
Freeway Segment
Analysis
AM
PM
Density
c/milln
Density
LOS clmi/In
LOS
SR -91 Westbound
F
N/A
F
SR -55 Northbound
8 Lakeview Ave Off -Ramp
Diverge
36.0
1 E
27.9
C
15 SR -55 NB On -Ramp to Tustin Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
28 SR -57 SB On -Ramp to State College Blvd Off -Ramp
Weave
40.6
E
39.9
E
SR -91 Eastbound
F
N/A
F
SR -57 Northbound
4 State College Blvd On -Ramp to SR -57 NB/SB Off-
Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
40.2
E
12 Glassell St On -Ramp to Tustin Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
34.5
D
NIA
F
14 Tustin Ave On -Ramp to SR -55 SB Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
SR -55 Northbound
4 1 Lincoln Ave On -Ramp to SR -91
Weave
NIA
F
N/A
F
SR -55 Southbound
1 1 SR -91 to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
SR -57 Northbound
8
1 SR -91 EB/WB On -Ramps to Orangethorpe Ave Off-
M___
Weave
28.1
D
N/A
F
SR -57 Southbound
4 Orangethorpe Ave On -Ramp to SR 91 EBMB Off- Weave 51.9 E 48.9 E
Ramps
6 SR 91 EB/WB On -Ramps to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp Weave 50.1 E N/A F
Note: Per HCM, where V/C > 1, density value is not calculated and LOS is reported as "F
Freeway Improvement — Existing 2013 Plus Project
The freeway analysis determined that 11 of the Traffic Study Area locations are projected to
operate at LOS E or F under the Existing 2013 Plus Project scenario. However, out of the
11 study locations, only one location is projected to have a worse LOS than the existing
condition and the following improvement is recommended to improve LOS to acceptable
level.
■ SR -91 Westbound: Lakeview Avenue Off -Ramp (Diverge) (AM LOS E; PM LOS C) —
Capacity improvement: Provide a 2nd lane on the Lakeview Avenue Off -Ramp will
improve LOS to acceptable level (AM LOS C; PM LOS B)
This off -ramp is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans; therefore, the City of Anaheim cannot
guarantee the implementation of this improvement and it, subsequently, may not be feasible.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -40-
Freeway Analysis - Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Scenario
All freeway segments in the Traffic Study Area are projected to operate at LOS D or better
during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the freeway segments shown
below.
AM Peak PM Peak
Segment Analysis Density Density
# Freeway g y pclmilln LOS pclmilln LOS
SR -91 Westbound
6
Imperial Hwy Direct On -Ramp
Merge
35.0
F
31.4
D
8
Lakeview Ave Off -Ramp
Diverge
41.0
F
38.6
E
10
Lakeview Ave Loop On -Ramp
Merge
34.7
F
30
D
12
Lakeview Ave Direct On -Ramp
Merge
41.9
F
38.9
F
14
SR -55 SB Off -Ramp to SR -55 NB On -Ramp
Mainline
38.9
E
40.5
E
15
SR -55 NB On -Ramp to Tustin Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
19
Kraemer Blvd Off -Ramp
Diverge
35.2
E
38.0
E
26
SR -57 NB On -Ramp
Merge
33.2
D
37.8
E
27
SR -57 NB On -Ramp to SR -57 SB On -Ramp
Mainline
33.1
D
43.1
E
28
SR -57 SB On -Ramp to State College Blvd Off -Ramp
Weave
49.1
E
N/A
F
29
State College Blvd Off -Ramp to State College Blvd
On -Ramp
Mainline
31.5
D
36.5
E
31
State College Blvd On -Ramp to Raymond Ave Off-
Ramp
Mainline
37.0
E
46.0
F
SR -91 Eastbound
4 State College Blvd On -Ramp to SR -57 NB/SB Off- Weave N/A
Ramp
F 42.9
E
12 Glassell St On -Ramp to Tustin Ave Off -Ramp Weave N/A
F N/A
F
14 Tustin Ave On -Ramp to SR -55 SB Off -Ramp Weave N/A
F N/A
F
21 1 Lakeview Ave Direct On -Ramp Merge 31.0
D 34.6
F
SR -55 Northbound
Lincoln Ave Direct On -Ramp to SR -91 EB Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
1 Katella Ave On -Ramp to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
Mainline
26.9
D
37.3
3 Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp to Lincoln Ave On -Ramp
Mainline
33.2
D
49.7 F
4 Lincoln Ave On -Ramp to SR -91
Weave
N/A
F
N/A F
SR -55 Southbound
F
51.4
E
6 SR 91 EB/WB On -Ramps to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
1 1 SR -91 to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A F
SR -57 Northbound
Merge
36.2
F
21.9
6
Lincoln Ave Direct On -Ramp to SR -91 EB Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
8
SR -91 EB/WB On -Ramps to Orangethorpe Ave Off-
Weave
27.4
C
N/A
F
35.1
Ramp
33.1
D
4 Orangethorpe Ave On -Ramp to SR 91 EB/WB Off-
Ramps
Weave
N/A
SR -57 Southbound
1 Chapman Ave to Orangethorpe Ave Off -Ramp
Mainline
35.4
E
31.9
D
2 Orangethorpe Ave Off -Ramp
Diverge
35.1
E
33.1
D
4 Orangethorpe Ave On -Ramp to SR 91 EB/WB Off-
Ramps
Weave
N/A
F
51.4
E
6 SR 91 EB/WB On -Ramps to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
10 Lincoln Ave Direct On -Ramp
Merge
36.2
F
21.9
C
11 1 Lincoln Ave Direct On -Ramp to Ball Rd
Mainline
35.5
E
21.5
C
Note: Per HCM, where VIC > 1, density value is not calculated and LOS is reported as T"
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -41-
Freeway Analysis - Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project
Scenario
All the freeway segments in the Traffic Study Area are projected to operate at LOS D or
better during both the AM and PM peak hours under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan
Buildout Plus Project scenario with the exception of the following segments described
below.
#
Freeway Segment
Analysis
I Density pUrnilln
LOS
Density
pclmilln
LOS
SR -91 Westbound
14
Tustin Ave On -Ramp to SR -55 SB Off -Ramp Weave N/A
F N/A
F
21
6
Imperial Hwy Direct On -Ramp
Merge
37.4
F
31.5
D
8
Lakeview Ave Off -Ramp
Diverge
42.0
F
38.8
E
10
Lakeview Ave Loop On -Ramp
Merge
36.9
F
29.8
D
12
Lakeview Ave Direct On -Ramp
Merge
44.5
F
39.3
F
14
SR -55 SB Off -Ramp to SR -55 NB On -Ramp
Mainline
41.1
E
40.4
E
15
SR -55 NB On -Ramp to Tustin Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
19
Kraemer Blvd Off -Ramp
Diverge
35.9
E
38.3
E
26
SR -57 NB On -Ramp
Merge
33.5
D
38.1
E
27
SR -57 NB On -Ramp to SR -57 SB On -Ramp
Mainline
33.7
D
43.7
E
28
SR -57 SB On -Ramp to State College Blvd Off -Ramp
Weave
49.7
E
N/A
F
29
State College Blvd Off -Ramp to State College Blvd
Mainline
31.9
D
36.7
E
31 1 State College Blvd On -Ramp to Raymond Ave Off I
Mainline 37.3 E 46.6 F
SR -91 Eastbound
4
State College Blvd On -Ramp to SR -57 NB/SB Off- Weave N/A
Ramp
F 42.6
E
12
Glassell St On -Ramp to Tustin Ave Off -Ramp Weave N/A
F N/A
F
14
Tustin Ave On -Ramp to SR -55 SB Off -Ramp Weave N/A
F N/A
F
21
Lakeview Ave Direct On -Ramp Merge 31.6
D 34.6
F
SR -55 Northbound
Lincoln Ave Direct On -Ramp to SR -91 EB Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
1 Katella Ave On -Ramp to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
Mainline
27.4
D
36.7
E
3 Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp to Lincoln Ave On -Ramp
Mainline
33.0
D
48.4
F
4 Lincoln Ave On -Ramp to SR -91
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
SR -55 Southbound
N/A
F
6
SR 91 EB/WB On -Ramps to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
1 1 SR -91 to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
SR -57 Northbound
36.7
F
22.7
C
11
6
Lincoln Ave Direct On -Ramp to SR -91 EB Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
8
SR -91 EB/WB On -Ramps to Orangethorpe Ave Off-
Ramp
Weave
28.1
D
N/A
F
SR -57 Southbound
1
Chapman Ave to Orangethorpe Ave Off -Ramp
Mainline
36.0
E
31.9
D
2
Orangethorpe Ave Off -Ramp
Diverge
35.5
E
33.2
D
4
Orangethorpe Ave On -Ramp to SR 91 EB/WB Off-
Ramps
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
6
SR 91 EB/WB On -Ramps to Lincoln Ave Off -Ramp
Weave
N/A
F
N/A
F
10
Lincoln Ave Direct On -Ramp
Merge
36.7
F
22.7
C
11
1 Lincoln Ave Direct On -Ramp to Ball Rd
Mainline
36.0
E
22.1
C
Note: Per HCM, where V/C > 1, density value is not calculated and LOS is reported as "F"
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -42-
Freeway Improvement — Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project
The freeway analysis shows that 28 of the Traffic Study Area locations are projected to
operate at LOS E or F under the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout Plus Project
scenario. However, out of the 28 study locations, only the following location is projected to
operate at a worse LOS when compared to the Forecast Year 2040 General Plan Buildout
Plus Project scenario:
■ SR -57 Southbound: Orangethorpe Ave On -Ramp to SR 91 EB/WB Off -Ramps
(Weave) (AM LOS F; PM LOS F)
This segment's need for mobility improvements has long been known, as documented by its
inclusion in the M2020 Plan as "Project I" which is to improve the SR-91/SR-55 to SR-
91/SR-57 interchange complex, as well as add freeway capacity between SR -55 and SR -57.
M2020 calls for specific improvements to be subject to plans developed in cooperation with
local jurisdictions and affected communities. OCTA has recently awarded a Project
Approval and Environmental Document (PAED) for this project to make it shelf ready for
early delivery as external funds become available. Therefore, the City shall cooperate with
OCTA and Caltrans to identify transportation or operational improvements necessary to
mitigate project -related impacts and enhance mobility through the Project I PAED. This
should focus on use of the existing Changeable Message Sign on southbound SR -57
approximately 1,100 feet north of Orangethorpe Avenue, to advise southbound traffic of
congestion ahead at the SR -91 interchange and communicate the alternate route of
Orangethorpe Avenue to Anaheim Canyon Road.
Although the City of Anaheim is willing to cooperate with OCTA and Caltrans toward
mitigating Project impacts, the recommended improvements are not under the jurisdiction
of the City of Anaheim; therefore, the City of Anaheim cannot guarantee implementation
which, subsequently, may not be feasible.
Mitigation Measures:
See Mitigation MeasuresT-1 through T-8.
Finding:
Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-8 would reduce traffic impacts to impacted freeway facilities to
extent feasible. While potential impacts to the freeway mainline segments and ramps have been
evaluated, implementation of the transportation improvements to Caltrans facilities listed above is
the primary responsibility of Caltrans. Improvements to state highway facilities are planned, funded,
and constructed by the State of California through a legislative and political process involving the
State Legislature; the California Transportation Commission (CTC); the California Business,
Transportation, and Housing Agency; the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and
OCTA. Although the proposed project would play a role in funding improvement programs, if these
improvements are not implemented by the agencies within the responsibility to do so, the project's
freeway ramp and mainline impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. As a result, Impact
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -43-
5.14-3 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is
required.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process
and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR.
Alternative Development Areas
The adopted General Plan, the Northeast Area Specific Plan (HASP) and PacifiCenter Specific Plan
(PCSP) already allows a significant amount of non-residential development within the Project Area.
Due to the Project Area's location adjacent to major transportation facilities including the SR -91, SR -
57, and SR -55 Freeways and the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station, the Project Area has been
designated by the City's General Plan as a significant employment center. Consistent with the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the role of the General Plan in framing CEQA alternatives
analysis, and in consideration of the City's General Plan, no alternative sites within the jurisdiction of
the City are considered to be feasible alternatives to the Proposed Project, since they would not
reduce the environmental impacts associated with the Project. Therefore, an alternative site could not
feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project, and thus there are no
available alternative sites which could accommodate the Proposed Project.
B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives with the
potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen
any of the significant effects of the project.
No Project/ Existing Specific Plans Alternative
This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the existing general plan and zoning
designations would remain unchanged. The Project Area currently contains approximately 27.9
million square feet of non-residential land uses and 312 multi -family dwelling units. Under this
alternative the Project Area would be developed to the maximum buildout potential under Northeast
Area Specific Plan (NASP) and PacifiCenter Specific Plan (PCSP). The NASP allows maximum non-
residential development of 29,378,688 square feet of non-residential at buildout and the PCSP allows
approximately 445,800 square feet of non-residential uses at buildout. Therefore, under this
alternative, additional 1,918,332 square feet of non-residential land uses would be developed within
the Project Area and no additional residential units would be constructed. Additional 1,918,332
square feet represents approximately 10 percent of the Proposed Project development.
Finding:
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -44-
No Project/Existing Specific Plans Alternative infeasible. [Pub. Res. Code 21081(a)(3); Guidelines
� 15091(a) (3)]
Facts in Support of Finding
• This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.
This alternative would avoid or substantially lessen significant and unavoidable impacts
related to air quality, biological resources, GHG emissions, noise, public services,
transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to geology and
soils, hydrology and water quality, minerals, population and housing, and recreation would
be similar to the Proposed Project and greater impacts are anticipated for aesthetics, hazards
and hazardous materials, land use and planning.
Increased Residential Use Alternative
Under the Increased Residential Use Alternative, the non-residential intensity would be reduced by
half from 19,359,797 square feet to 9,679,899 square feet, and the maximum number of residential
units would be doubled from 2,919 units to 5,838 units. ACSP allows multi- and single-family
attached units, and even with the increase number of residential units, the overall construction square
footage would be less than the Proposed Project. This alternative would reduce the air quality, GHG
emissions, noise, and traffic impacts associated with implementation of the ACSP while achieving the
objectives of the ACSP. Under this scenario, 19,360 jobs would be created in the ACSP area and the
jobs/housing ratio for the City would change to 1.79 from 1.97 and for the County would change to
1.52 from 1.54.
Finding:
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the
Increased Residential Use Alternative infeasible. [Pub. Res. Code 21081(a)(3); Guidelines
� 15091(a) (3)]
Facts in Support of Finding
• This alternative would meet some of the project objectives.
This alternative would avoid or substantially lessen significant and unavoidable impacts
related to aesthetics, air quality, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, operational
noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to
biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and
planning, mineral resources, short-term noise, and population and housing would be similar
to the Proposed Project and greater impacts are anticipated for public services and
recreation.
Reduced Density Alternative
This alternative would reduce the overall additional development density by 30 percent. It would
reduce the additional non-residential area increase from 19,359,796.51 square feet to 13,551,859.55
square feet and residential increase from 2,607 units to 1,825 units. The intent of this alternative is to
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -45-
reduce the air quality, GHG emissions, and traffic impacts associated with implementation of the
ACSP while achieving the objectives of the ACSP.
Finding:
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the
Reduced Density Alternative infeasible. [Pub. Res. Code 21081(a)(3); Guidelines �15091(a)(3)]
Facts in Support of Finding
• This alternative would meet some of the project objectives.
This alternative would avoid or substantially lessen significant and unavoidable impacts
related to aesthetics, air quality, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise,
transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to biological
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, mineral
resources, population and housing, public services, and recreation would be similar to the
Proposed Project.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -46-
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of
the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable"
(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the
specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to
mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the
administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [b]). The agency's statement is referred
to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." The following sections provide a description of
the each of the project's significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and the justification for
adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
A. Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and Guidelines Section 15093, the City has
balanced the benefits of the Proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the Proposed Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to
these impacts: (1) Air Quality, (2) Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (3) Noise, (4) Transportation/Traffic
and (5) Utilities and Service Systems. The City also has examined alternatives to the Proposed
Project, none of which both meets the Project objectives to the same extent as the Proposed Project,
and is environmentally preferable to the Proposed Project.
The City declares that it has adopted mitigation measures to reduce all of the Proposed Project's
environmental impacts to an insignificant level, other than the following:
Air Quality
Impact 5.2-1
Mitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -4 would reduce criteria air pollutants generated from
project -related construction activities. Buildout of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan would occur
over 20 years or more. Construction time frames and equipment for individual site specific projects
are not available. There is a potential for multiple developments to be constructed at any one time,
resulting in significant construction -related emissions. Therefore, despite adherence to Mitigation
Measures AQ -1 through AQ -4, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.2-2
Incorporation of Mitigation Measures AQ -5 and AQ -8 would reduce operation -related criteria air
pollutants generated from stationary and mobile sources. Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3
would also encourage and accommodate use of alternative -fueled vehicles and nonmotorized
transportation. However, despite adherence to Mitigation Measures AQ -5 through AQ -8 and T-1
through T-3, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.2-3
Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -4 (applied for Impact 5.2-1) would also reduce the Proposed
Project's regional construction emissions and therefore would also reduce its localized construction -
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -47-
related criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. However, because existing sensitive
receptors may be close to project -related construction activities, construction emissions generated by
individual projects have the potential to exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) local significance thresholds. Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.2-4
Buildout of the proposed Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan could result in new sources of criteria air
pollutant emissions and/or toxic air contaminants near existing or planned sensitive receptors.
Review of projects by SCAQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry
cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure health risks are minimized. Mitigation
Measure AQ -9 would ensure mobile sources of toxic air contaminants not covered under SCAQMD
permits are considered during subsequent project -level environmental review. Development of
individual projects may achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by SCAQMD. However,
the incremental increase in health risk associated with individual projects is considered cumulatively
considerable and would contribute to already elevated levels of cancer and noncancer health risks in
the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, Impact 5.2-4 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.2-6
Mitigation measures applied for Impacts 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 would reduce the project's regional
construction -related and operational phase criteria air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible.
However, given the potential increase in growth and associated increase in criteria air pollutant
emissions, the Proposed Project would continue to be potentially inconsistent with the assumptions
in the air quality management plan. Impact 5.2-6 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 5.5-1
The Proposed Project would result in the reduction of the GHG emissions per capita rate from
10.77 metric tons of CO2 -equivalent per service population (MTCO2e/SP) to 9.12 MTCO2e/SP.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -5 through AQ -8 would further reduce GHG emissions
from stationary and mobile sources to the extent feasible. Additionally, Mitigation Measures T-1
through T-3 would also encourage and accommodate use of alternative -fueled vehicles and
nonmotorized transportation. However, due to the magnitude of GHG emissions associated with the
Proposed Project, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Noise
Impact 5.10-1
Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 would reduce potential noise impacts during construction to the
extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive
uses and potential longevity of construction activities, Impact 5.10-1 (construction noise) would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -48-
Transportation and Traffic
Impact 5.14-1
Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-8 would reduce impacts to all intersections
and segments to operate at acceptable levels of service. However, as shown in Table 5.14-21 and
5.14-22, not all recommended improvements maybe feasible due to right-of-way constraints. All
impacted intersections that are located in the City of Anaheim and require operational improvement
would be reduced to a less than significant level. However, not enough right-of-way has been
identified at the following locations to implement the recommended improvements.
■ #42 Tustin Avenue / Pacificenter Drive
■ #57 Lakeview Avenue / La Palma Avenue
Therefore, Impact 5.14-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.14-2
Implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-8 would reduce impacts to all intersections
and segments to operate at acceptable levels of service. However, as shown in Table 5.14-22 and
5.14-23, not all recommended improvements maybe feasible due to right-of-way constraints or
guaranteed to be implemented due to jurisdictional constraints. Inasmuch as the primary
responsibility for approving and/or completing certain improvements located outside of Anaheim
lies with agencies other than the City of Anaheim (i.e., Cities of Placentia and Orange), there is the
potential that significant impacts may not be fully mitigated if such improvements are not completed
for reasons beyond the City of Anaheim's control (e.g., the City of Anaheim cannot undertake or
require improvements outside of Anaheim's jurisdiction). The City of Anaheim cannot guarantee
implementation of recommended improvements at the following intersections and arterial segments.
Signalized Intersections
■ #6 State College Boulevard/Lincoln Avenue (ROW constraints)
■ #15 Rio Vista St / Lincoln Ave (ROW constraints)
■ #22 Kraemer Blvd / Orangethorpe Ave (jurisdictional constraints)
■ #24 Kraemer Boulevard/Miraloma Avenue (ROW constraints)
■ #26 Kraemer Blvd / La Palma Ave (ROW constraints)
■ #41 Tustin Street/La Palma Avenue (ROW constraints)
■ #42 Tustin Ave / Pacificenter Drive (ROW constraints)
■ #57 Lakeview Avenue/La Palma Avenue (ROW constraints)
■ #58 Lakeview Avenue/Riverdale Avenue (ROW constraints)
■ #60 Lakeview Avenue/Santa Ana Canyon Road (ROW constraints)
■ #77 Batavia St / Lincoln Ave (jurisdictional constraints)
Unsignalized Intersection
■ #28 Kraemer Blvd / SR -91 EB Ramps (jurisdictional constraints)
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -49-
Arterial Segments
■ #36 Lakeview Avenue from Santa Ana Canyon Road to La Palma Avenue (ROW constraints)
■ #39 Lincoln Avenue from Sunkist Street to SR -57 Freeway (ROW constraints)
■ #40 Lincoln Avenue from SR -57 Freeway to Rio Vista Street (ROW constraints)
■ #82 Tustin Avenue from La Palma Avenue to Jefferson Street (ROW constraints)
■ #84 Tustin Avenue from Miraloma Avenue to Orangethorpe Avenue (ROW constraints)
Therefore, Impact 5.14-2 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 5.14-3
State highway facilities within the study area are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim.
Rather, those improvements are planned, funded, and constructed by the State of California through
a legislative and political process involving the State Legislature; the California Transportation
Commission (CTC); the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency; the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and OCTA. Recent funding opportunities designated by
OCTA's Renewed Measure M provide the vehicle for designated improvements on the freeway
facilities within the study area and were analyzed at their recommended build -out in the ACSP.
While potential impacts to the freeway mainline segments and ramps have been evaluated,
implementation of the transportation improvements to Caltrans facilities listed above is the primary
responsibility of Caltrans. While Caltrans has recognized that private development has a role to play
in funding fair share improvements to impacts on the SR -91 and SR -55, neither Caltrans nor the
State has adopted a program that can ensure that locally -contributed impact fees will be tied to
improvements to freeway mainlines and only Caltrans has jurisdiction over mainline improvements.
Because Caltrans has exclusive control over state highway improvements, ensuring that developer fair
share contributions to mainline improvements are actually part of a program tied to implementation
of mitigation is within the jurisdiction of Caltrans. However, a number of programs are in place in
Orange County to improve and upgrade the regional transportation system. These include the
Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) Corridor program, the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), Caltrans Traffic Operations Strategies (TOPS), State Highway Operation and
Protection Program (SHOPP), and the OCTA Measure M program. State and federal fuel taxes
generate most of the funds used to pay for these improvements. Funds expected to be available for
transportation improvements are identified through a Fund Estimate prepared by Caltrans and
adopted by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). These funds, along with other fund
sources, are deposited in the State Highway Account to be programmed and allocated to specific
project improvements in both the STIP and SHOPP by the CTC. However, if these programs are
not implemented by the agencies with the responsibility to do so, the project's freeway ramp and
mainline impacts would remain significant and unmitigated.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -50-
B. CONSIDERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the project that outweigh the project's unavoidable
adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the project acceptable even though the
Final EIR has indicated that there will be significant project impacts that are infeasible to mitigate.
Economic Growth: From the 1950s through the 1980s, the aerospace industry, led by Boeing, was
instrumental in establishing Anaheim Canyon as a premier high tech manufacturing center. Anaheim
Canyon area has historically been a jobs -rich area that supplies approximately a third of all jobs in the
City of Anaheim. However, due to economic cycles, military downsizing and reorganization, and
economic competition from other areas, many of these industries left Anaheim Canyon in the 1990s
and early 2000s. Anaheim Canyon now offers a range of industrial, commercial, recycling, and
transit -oriented industries without cohesive design theme or guidelines. The proposed project would
improve the public realm (infrastructure, streetscapes, and signage) and provide more attractive and
better functioning destination for businesses to locate. Anaheim Canyon is envisioned as a regional
job center with available infrastructure for growth and would facilitate future job growth at strategic
points along the commuter rail, transit systems, and freeway corridors. Implementation of the
Proposed Project would better position existing businesses and future businesses to respond to
market trends and competitive pressure from other areas, therefore. The Proposed Project would
also allow City to engage in effective incentives for local business community to help foster
economic vitality and establish strategies to attract quality, long-term jobs. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would promote economic growth in the Anaheim Canyon Area.
Provides Employment Opportunities for Highly Skilled Workers: The implementation of the
Project will provide employment opportunities for a highly skilled workforce, especially opportunities
within the trades and construction industries.
Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled: The Proposed Project would expand opportunities for additional
high-density residential, office, and retail development within one-quarter to one-half mile of the
Metrolink Station, reducing reliance on automobiles, and therefore, having positive impact on the
overall vehicle miles traveled in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 375.
Sustainability: The Proposed Project would promote city-wide sustainability by encouraging growth
in a manner that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and encourages green buildings. The Proposed
Project would further market and expand existing programs that incentivizes a diverse spectrum of
energy and water systems and services, ranging from systematic energy audits, lighting retrofits, water
conservation strategies, renewable energy utilization, and new construction and customized energy
reduction strategies.
Provision of Needed Housing: The number of housing units in the ACSP area would increase
from 312 to 2,919 dwelling units, an increase of 2,607 units. The existing jobs per housing unit ratio
within the project area is currently 178.91 jobs per housing unit, and at buildout, the ACSP area
would have a ratio of 32.39. This is a significant improvement over the existing jobs/housing ratio
within Anaheim Canyon. The Proposed Project would provide needed housing in the ACSP area
while also foster economic growth in a sustainable manner.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -51-
Implements the Objectives Established for the Project: The following objectives have been
established for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. The implementation of these project objectives is
a legal prerogative of the City.
1. Facilitate development and redevelopment of the Project Area consistent with City's General
Plan through preparation of a specific plan.
2. Foster development that serves to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting alternatives to
driving, such as walking, biking, and use of mass transit.
3. Maintain the Anaheim Canyon area as a major employment center.
4. Create a successful business climate with flexible regulations.
5. Help local businesses meet State and regional sustainability mandates.
6. Create a comprehensive vision that is supported by business owners, property owners, and
the greater community.
7. Improve the physical image of the public realm to help promote economic growth.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the implementation of the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan and the
associated project action will contribute toward maintaining the Anaheim Canyon area as a major
employment center while improving the physical image of the public realm and complying with
regional sustainability regulations and mandates, all of which outweigh the unavoidable
environmental impacts.
Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations -52-
EXHIBIT "B"
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
FOR ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN (ACSP)
[Behind this page.]
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
FOR
ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN (ACSP)
CEQA Action: Environmental Impact Report No. 2013-00348 (State Clearinghouse #2013101087)
1. Project Description —
■ GPA2014-00492: Amend the General Plan Land Use, Circulation, Green, Economic Development, and Community Design Elements
to provide consistency with the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan.
■ SPN2014-00065: Rescind the PacifiCenter Anaheim and Northeast Area Specific Plans and adopt the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan
in their place.
■ ZCA2014-00115: Amend Tide 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to (a) rescind Chapter 18.106 (PacifiCenter Anaheim
Specific Plan No. 88-3 (SP88-3) Zoning and Development Standards) and Chapter 18.120 (Northeast Area Specific Plan No. 94-1
(SP94-1) Zoning and Development Standards), (b) adopt Chapter 18.120 (Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan No. 2015-01 (SP 2015-01)
Zoning and Development Standards), and (c) amend other portions of the Anaheim Municipal Code to be consistent with the addition
of the new Chapter 18.120.
■ RCL2014-00262: Apply the zoning and development standards of the proposed new Chapter 18.120 to those properties within the
Anaheim Canyon that are currently classified under the SP 88-3 Zone, the SP 94-1 Zone, the "I" Industrial Zone, the "C -G" General
Commercial Zone, the "T" Transition Zone, and the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone.
2. Property Owner/Developer — Any owner or developer of real property within the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan boundaries
3. Environmental Equivalent/Timing — Any Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the
same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any
appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed "environmental equivalent/timing" and, if determined
necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a
determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the property owner/ developer. Staff time for reviews will be charged on
a time and materials basis at the rate in the City's adopted fee schedule.
4. Timing — This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are
indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has
been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Program will occur because routine City practices and
procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is "to be shown on approved budding
plans" subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant
to the building permit to ensure compliance.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
5. Responsibility for Monitoring — Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined
adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure.
6. Ongoing Mitigation Measures — The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this mitigation
monitoring program will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year stating how
compliance with the subject measures(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of one year,
monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored
"Ongoing During Construction," the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring. Monitoring will be
discontinued after construction is completed.
7. Building Permit — For purposes of this mitigation monitoring program, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for
construction of a new building or structural expansion or modification of any existing building but shall not include any permits required for
interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building.
Page 2 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing I Mitigation Measure
AIR QUALITY
Responsible for Monitoring I Completion
Prior to the issuance of
grading, demolition or
building plans, whichever
occurs first.
AQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building plans, whichever occurs first, the
property owner/developer shall provide a note on plans indicating that ongoing during
grading and construction, contractors will use equipment that meets the following United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -Certified emissions standards:
All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet
the Tier 4 Final emission standards. Any emissions control device used by the contractor
shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a
Level 4 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine, as defined by CARB
regulations.
Planning and Building Department/
Building Division
Prior to issuance of
AQ -2 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building plans, whichever occurs first, the
Planning and Building Department/
grading, demolition or
property owner/developer shall provide a list of all construction equipment proposed to be
Building Division
building plans, whichever
used on the project site. This list may be provided on the building plans. The construction
occurs first.
equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of the equipment; that the
equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations; and, that all nonessential idling of construction
equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources
Board's Rule 2449.
Prior to issuance of
AQ -3 Prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building plans, whichever occurs first, the
Planning and Building Department/
grading, demolition or
property owner/developer shall submit a dust control plan that implements the following
Building Division
building plans, whichever
measures during ground -disturbing activities, in addition to the existing requirements for
occurs first.
fugitive dust control under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, to
further reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions:
a) Following all grading activities, the construction contractor shall reestablish ground
cover on the construction site through seeding and watering.
b) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall sweep streets with
Rule 1186—compliant, PMlo-efficient vacuum units on a daily basis if silt is carried
over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
c) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall maintain a
minimum 24 -inch freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials
and tarp materials with a fabric cover or other cover that achieves the same amount
of protection.
d) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall water exposed
round surfaces and disturbed areas a minimum of every three hours on the
Page 3 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
construction site and a minimum of three times per day.
e) During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall limit onsite vehicle
speeds on unpaved roads to no more than 15 miles per hour.
The Building Division shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections.
Prior to issuance of a
AQ -4 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall provide a note on
Planning and Building Department/
building permit.
plans indicating that:
Building Division
a) All coatings and solvents will have a volatile organic compound (VOC) content lower
than required under Rule 1113 (i.e., super compliant paints).
b) All architectural coatings shall be applied either by (1) using a high-volume, low-
pressure spray method operated at an air pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per
square inch gauge to achieve a 65 percent application efficiency; or (2) manual
application using a paintbrush, hand -roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge, to
achieve a 100 percent applicant efficiency.
c) The construction contractor shall also use precoated/natural colored building
materials, where feasible.
The Building Division shall verify compliance during normal construction site inspections.
Prior to issuance of
AQ -5 Prior to issuance of building permits, for residential development, the property
Planning and Building Department/
building permits for new
owner/developer shall provide a note on building plans that indicates that all shared
Building Division
residential development.
community barbeques will be electric powered barbeque units. These units shall be
verified on site by the Building Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Prior to issuance of a
AQ -6 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the property owner/developer shall show on plans
Planning and Building Department/
building permit.
that all applicant -provided appliances be Energy Star appliances (dishwashers,
Building Division
refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star appliances shall be
verified by the Building Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Prior to issuance of
AQ -7 Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction of residential development, the
Planning and Building Department/
building permit for new
property owner/developer shall indicate on plans that garage and/or car port parking are
Building Division
residential development.
electrically wired to accommodate a Level 2 (240 volt) electric vehicle charging. The
location of the electrical outlets shall be specified on building plans, and proper installation
shall be verified by the Building Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Page 4 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
Prior to issuance of
AQ -8 Prior to issuance of building permits for new construction of non-residential development
Planning and Building Department/
building permits for new
of 100,000 building square feet or more, the property owner/developer shall indicate on
Building Division
construction of non-
plans that Level 2 vehicle charging stations will be provided for public use, and where
residential development
feasible, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with the City of Anaheim to install
of 100,000 building
Level 3 (480 volt or higher) charging stations. The location of the charging station(s) shall
square feet or more.
be specified on building plans, and proper installation shall be verified by the Building
Division prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Prior to issuance of
AQ -9 Prior to issuance of building permits for new industrial or warehousing projects that meets
Planning and Building Department/
building permit.
the following criteria:
Building Division
a) Have the potential to generate 100 or more diesel truck trips per day or have 40 or
Planning and Building Department/
more trucks with operating diesel -powered transport refrigeration units (TRUs), and
Planning Services Division
b) Are within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals,
City Attorney's Office
nursing homes), as measured from the property line of the project to the property line
of the nearest sensitive use.
The property owner/developer shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the Planning
Department, The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the
State of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand
(1.0E-05), PM concentrations would exceed 2.5 pg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer
hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that
best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential
cancer and noncancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement
mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to, restricting idling onsite or
electrifying warehousing docks to reduce diesel particulate matter, or requiring use of
newer equipment and/or vehicles. The property owner/developer shall record a covenant
on the property that requires ongoing implementation of T-BACTs identified in the HRA.
The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to
recordation.
Page 5 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
Prior to issuance of
AQ -10 Prior to issuance of building permits for new residential developments, the property
Planning and Building Department/
building permits for new
owner/developer shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) to the Planning Department.
Building Division
residential developments.
The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State of
Planning and Building Department/
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South
Planning Services Division
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
City Attorney's Office
If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand
(1.0E-05), PM concentrations would exceed 2,5 pg/m3, or the appropriate noncancer
hazard index exceeds 1.0, the following is required prior to issuance of building permits:
a) The HRA shall identify the level of high -efficiency Minimum Efficiency Reporting
Value (MERV) filter required to reduce indoor air concentrations of pollutants to
achieve the cancer and/or noncancer threshold.
b) Installation of high efficiency MERV filters in the intake of residential ventilation
systems consistent with the recommendations of the HRA, shall be shown on plans.
Heating, air conditioning, and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan
unit designed to force air through the MERV filter.
c) To ensure long-term maintenance and replacement of the MERV filters in the
individual units, the property owner/developer shall record a covenant on the
property that requires ongoing implementation of the actions below. The form of the
covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation.
1. The property owner/developer shall provide notification to all future tenants or
owners of the potential health risk for affected units and the increased risk of
exposure to diesel particulates when windows are open.
2. For rental units, the property owner/developer shall maintain and replace
MERV filters in accordance with the manufacture's recommendations.
3. For ownership units, the Homeowner's Association shall incorporate
requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and
Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the
MERV filter in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Prior to approval of any
AQ -11 For projects located within 1,000 feet of an industrial facility that emits substantial odors,
Planning and Building Department/
future discretionary action
which includes but is not limited to:
Building Division
■ Wastewater treatment plants
Planning and Building Department/
• Composting, greenwaste, or recycling facilities
Planning Services Division
■ Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
Page 6 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
grading permits.
■ Painting/coating operations
Planning Services Division
■ Large -capacity coffee roasters
■ Food-processing facilities
The property owner/developer shall submit an odor assessment to the Planning Director
prior to approval of any future discretionary action that verifies that the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has not received three or more verified odor
complaints. If the Odor Assessment identifies that the facility has received three such
complaints, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available
Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential odors to an
Prior to issuance of
acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include,
Planning and Building Department/
demolition, grading or
but are not limited to, scrubbers at the industrial facility, or installation of Minimum
Planning Services Division
building permits,
Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters rated at 14 or better at all residential units.
Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3 would also reduce Air Quality Impacts of the Proposed Project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Prior to issuance of
BIO -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits for any project that occurs within the areas identified
Planning and Building Department/
grading permits.
as having potential for the occurrence of special plant communities and sensitive species
Planning Services Division
as shown in Figure 5.3-1, Areas with Potential for Sensitive Species and Plant
Communities, of the Draft EIR, the property owner/developer shall submit a biological
survey prepared by a qualified biologist. The biological survey shall assess potential
impacts to wildlife movement and identify any impacts to sensitive vegetation
communities, including coastal sage scrub, riparian, wetland, and open water habitats.
The property owner/developer shall be required to restore and revegetate where the loss
of small and/or isolated habitat patches is proposed, and maintain existing wildlife
movement opportunities.
Prior to issuance of
BIO -2 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, whichever occurs first,
Planning and Building Department/
demolition, grading or
construction activity is set to occur during nesting season (typically between February 1
Planning Services Division
building permits,
and July 1), the property owner/developer shall be required to conduct nesting bird
whichever occurs first.
surveys in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements,
and submit said surveys to the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Such surveys shall
identify avoidance measures to protect active nests.
Prior to issuance of
BIO -3 Prior to issuance of building permits, for projects with new lighting located adjacent to
Planning and Building Department/
building permits,
natural areas, the property owner/developer shall submit a lighting plan indicating that the
Building Division
proposed lighting has been designed to prevent artificial lighting from reflecting into
adjacent natural areas.
Page 7 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
Prior to preliminary design
BIO4 Prior to preliminary design of any bridge crossing the Santa Ana River, a qualified biologist
Planning and Building Department/
of any bridge crossing the
shall conduct a jurisdictional delineation of the potential disturbance area at locations
Planning Services Division
Santa Ana River.
where construction activity could affect jurisdictional waters. The jurisdictional delineation
shall determine if features are under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the California
(ACOE), the Regional Water Quality
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The result shall be a preliminary jurisdictional
Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the
delineation report that shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim and any responsible
California Department of Fish and
agency, ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, for review and approval. Based on
Wildlife (CDFW)
the results of the preliminary jurisdictional delineation, bridge design shall be completed so
that impacts to jurisdictional waters are minimized in consultation with the ACOE,
RWQCB, and CDFW. After final design but prior to construction, permits shall be obtained
from each agency where applicable.
Prior to the issuance of
BIO -5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for projects potentially affecting riparian or wetland
Planning and Building Department/
grading permits.
habitat, the property owner/developer shall provide evidence that all necessary permits
Planning Services Division
have been obtained from the California Department of Fish And Wildlife (pursuant to
US Army Corps of Engineers
Section 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or that no such permits are required, in a
(ACOE), the Regional Water Quality
manner meeting the approval of the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Should a
CoontrolntrolBoard (RWQCB), and/or the
Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers be required, a Section 401 Water
California Department of Fish and
Quality Certification would also be obtained from the California Regional Water Quality
Wildlife (CDFW)
Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
GREENHOUS GAS EMISSIONS
See Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ -5 through AQ -8 and Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures T-1 through T-3.
NOISE
Ongoing during grading, N-1 Ongoing during grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall Planning and Building Department/
demolition, and be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit Building Division
construction. construction -related noise:
■ Construction activity is limited to the daytime hours between 7 AM to 7 PM, as
prescribed in the City's Municipal Code.
■ All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with
properly maintained mufflers.
■ Stationary equipment such as generators, air compressors shall be located as far as
feasible from nearby noise -sensitive uses.
Page 8 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
• Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise -sensitive receptors
• Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes established by the City of
Anaheim.
Prior to issuance of a
N-2 Prior to issuance of a building permit for any project requiring pile driving or blasting during
Planning and Building Department/
building permit for any
construction, the property owner/developer shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to
Building Division
project requiring pile
assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. The
driving or blasting during
maximum levels shall not exceed 0.2 inches/second, which is the level that can cause
construction.
architectural damage for typical residential construction. If maximum levels would exceed
these thresholds, alternative uses such static rollers, non -explosive blasting, and drilling
piles as opposed to pile driving shall be used.
Prior to issuance of
N-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, if new vibration -sensitive land uses are located within
Planning and Building Department/
building permits.
200 feet of any railroad line, the property owner/developer shall retain an acoustical
Building Division
engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that includes a vibration analysis for potential
impacts from vibration generated by operation of the rail line. Mixed use buildings shall be
designed to eliminate vibration amplifications due to resonances of floors, walls, and
ceilings. The detailed analysis shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
issuance of building permits and shall show that the vibration levels would be below 72
VdB, which is Federal Transit Administration's nighttime criteria to regulate vibration
impacts to affected residential uses.
Prior to issuance of
N4 Prior to issuance of building permits for projects involving development of new industrial
Planning and Building Department/
building permits for
uses within 200 feet of any existing residential use or Development Area 3, the property
Building Division
projects involving
owner/developer shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis that
development of new
includes a vibration analysis for potential impacts from vibration generated by industrial
industrial uses within 200
activities. The detailed analysis shall be submitted to the Planning Department showing
feet of any existing
that the vibration levels to any nearby residential use would be below 78 VdB during the
residential use or
daytime (7 AM to 10 PM) and 72 VdB during the nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM), which is the
Development Area 3.
Federal Transit Administration's nighttime criteria to regulate vibration impacts to affected
residential uses.
Prior to issuance of a
N-5 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project property owner/developers shall submit a
Planning and Building Department/
building permit.
final acoustical report prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The report shall
Building Division
show that the development will be sound -attenuated against present and projected noise
levels, including roadway, aircraft, helicopter, stationary sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, etc.), and railroad, to meet City interior standards as follows:
a) The report shall demonstrate that the proposed residential design will result in
compliance with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise levels, as required by the California
Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards Title 24 and 25 of the
Page 9 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
building and zoning
California Code of Regulations).
and Transportation Division
inspection for any non-
b) The report shall demonstrate that the Proposed Project residential design shall
residential project
minimize nighttime awakening from train horns such that interior single -event noise
generating 50 or more
employees.
levels are below 81 dBA Lmax.
City Attorney's Office
The property owner/developer shall submit the noise mitigation report to the Planning
Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the project acoustical design
features shall be incorporated into construction of the Proposed Project.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Prior to the first final
T-1 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
Public Works Department/Traffic
building and zoning
generating 50 or more employees, the property owners/developer shall complete the
and Transportation Division
inspection for any non-
following steps below to develop, implement and administer a comprehensive
residential project
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program.
generating 50 or more
employees.
a) The property owner/developer shall provide to the City of Anaheim Public Works
City Attorney's Office
Department, for review and approval, a comprehensive TDM program that includes a
menu of TDM program strategies and elements for both existing and future
employees' commute options.
b) The property owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that requires
ongoing implementation of the approved TDM program and designation of an on-site
contact that will be responsible for coordinating the TDM program.
c) The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to
recordation.
Prior to the first final
T-2 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
Public Works Department/Traffic
building and zoning
generating 50 or more employees, the property owner/developer shall join and financially
and Transportation Division
inspection for any non-
participate in a clean fuel shuttle program, if established. The property owner/developer
residential project
shall record a covenant on the property that requires participation in the program ongoing
generating 50 or more
during project operation. The form of the covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney's
City Attorney's Office
employees.
Office prior to recordation.
Prior to the first final
T-3 Prior to the first final building and zoning inspection for any non-residential project
Public Works Department/Traffic
building and zoning
generating 50 or more employees, the property owner/developer shall participate in the
and Transportation Division
inspection for any non-
Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN)/Transportation Management Association. The
residential project
property owner/developer shall record a covenant on the property that requires ongoing
generating 50 or more
participation in the program and designation of an on-site contact that will be responsible
City Attorney's Office
employees,
for coordinating and representing the project with the ATN. The form of the covenant shall
be approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation.
Page 10 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
Prior to issuance of the
T-4 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each building, the property owner/developer
Public Works Department/Traffic
first building permit for
shall pay all applicable transportation impact fees to the City of Anaheim in amounts
and Transportation Division
each building.
determined by the City Council Resolution in effect at the time of issuance of the building
permit with credit given for City -authorized improvements provided by the property
owner/developer; and participate in all applicable reimbursement or benefit districts which
have been established.
Prior to issuance of
T-5 Prior to issuance of building permits for any project forecast to generate 100 or more peak
Public Works Department/Traffic
building permits for any
hour trips, as determined by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager utilizing Anaheim
and Transportation Division
project forecast to
Traffic Analysis Model Trip Generation Rates, the property owner/developer shall submit
generate 100 or more
to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager traffic improvement phasing analyses to
peak hour trips.
identify when the improvements identified in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan EIR Traffic
Impact Study, Iteris, September 2014 (Appendix G of the Draft EIR) shall be designed and
constructed.
a) The traffic improvement phasing analyses will specify the timing, funding,
construction and fair -share responsibilities for all traffic improvements necessary to
maintain satisfactory levels of service within the City of Anaheim and surrounding
jurisdictions, as defined by the City's General Plan, based on thresholds of
significance, performance standards and methodologies utilized in EIR No. 348,
Orange County Congestion Management Program and established in City of
Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines.
b) The property owner/developer shall construct, bond for or enter into a funding
agreement for necessary circulation system improvements, as determined by the
City Traffic and Transportation Manager. At minimum, fair -share calculations shall
include intersection improvements, rights-of-way, and construction costs, unless
alternative funding sources have been identified to help pay for the improvement.
Prior to first final building
T-6 Prior to first final building and zoning inspection, in conjunction with the preparation of any
Public Works Department/Traffic
and zoning inspection, in
traffic improvement phasing analyses required by Mitigation Measure T-5, the property
and Transportation Division
conjunction with the
owner/developer shall implement traffic improvements to maintain satisfactory levels of
preparation of any traffic
services, as identified in the project traffic improvement phasing analysis,
improvement phasing
analyses required by
Mitigation Measure T-5.
Page 11 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
Prior to issuance of
T-7 Prior to issuance of building permits, in conjunction with the preparation of any traffic
Public Works Department/Traffic
building permits, in
improvement phasing analyses required by Mitigation Measure T-5, the property
and Transportation Division
conjunction with the
owner/developer and the City of Anaheim shall take the following actions in cooperation
preparation of any traffic
with the Cities of Orange, Fullerton and Placentia:
improvement phasing
n
analyses required iby
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify any impacts created by the
Mitigation Measure T-5.
project on facilities within the Cities of Orange, Fullerton or Placentia.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall calculate the fair -share percentage
responsibility for mitigating these impacts.
c) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project's fair -share responsibility in
cooperation with the Cities of Orange, Fullerton and Placentia.
d) The property owner/developer shall pay the City of Anaheim the fair -share cost prior
to issuance of a building permit.
e) The City of Anaheim shall hold the amount received in trust, and then, once a
mutually agreed upon joint program is executed by both cities, the City of Anaheim
shall allocate the fair -share contribution to traffic mitigation programs that result in
improved traffic flow at the impacted locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable
to both cities.
Prior to issuance of
T-8 Prior to issuance of building permits, in conjunction with the preparation of any traffic
Public Works Department/Traffic
building permits, in
improvement phasing analyses required by Mitigation Measure T-5, the property
and Transportation Division
conjunction with the
owner/developer and the City of Anaheim shall take the following actions in cooperation
preparation of any traffic
with Caltrans;
improvement phasing
n
analyses required iby
a) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall identify the project's proportionate
Mitigation Measure T-5.
impact on the specific freeway mainline and/or freeway ramp locations.
b) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall determine the property
owner/developer's fair -share percentage responsibility for mitigating project impacts
based on thresholds of significance, performance standards and methodologies
utilized in EIR No. 348 and established in the Orange County Congestion
Management Program and City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines.
c) The traffic improvement phasing analysis shall determine if a regional transportation
agency has programmed and funded the warranted improvements to the impacted
freeway mainline or freeway ramp locations
d) The City of Anaheim shall estimate the cost of the project's fair -share responsibility in
cooperation with Caltrans.
e The property owner/developer shall pay the City of Anaheim the identified fair -share
Page 12 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
demolition, grading, or
responsibility as determined above.
Engineering Division
building permits,
f) The City shall allocate the property owners/developers fair -share contribution to
whichever occurs first.
traffic mitigation programs that result in improved traffic flow on the impacted
mainline and ramp locations, via an agreement mutually acceptable to Caltrans and
City Attorney's Office
the City of Anaheim.
g) Future traffic improvement phasing analyses for Caltrans facilities shall utilize the
latest adopted HCM methodology. In addition, proposed intersection modifications
within Caltrans right-of-way shall be consistent with Caltrans Traffic Operations
Policy Directive 13-02: Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE)
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Prior to issuance of
USS -1 Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, or building permits, whichever occurs first, the
Public Works Department/
demolition, grading, or
property owner/developer shall submit plans to the City Engineer for review. The City
Engineering Division
building permits,
Engineer shall review the location of each project to determine if it is an area served by
whichever occurs first.
potentially deficient sewer facilities, as identified in the latest updated sewer study for the
ACSP. If the project will increase sewer flows beyond those programmed in the
City Attorney's Office
appropriate master plan sewer study for the area or if the project currently discharges to
an existing deficient sewer system or will create a deficiency in an existing sewer line, the
property owner/developer shall perform additional sewer analysis using flow, wet -weather
data, and other information specific for the project to determine the surcharge levels for
final design. The property owner/developer shall be required to guarantee mitigation of the
impact to adequately serve the area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Attorney's Office, which could include additional related fees, construction, or a
combination thereof.
Prior to approval of
USS -2 Prior to approval of sanitary sewer connections for each development project, the property
Public Works Department/
sanitary sewer
owner/developer shall be required to install the sanitary sewer facilities, as required by the
Engineering Division
connections for each
City Engineer, to prevent the sewer surcharge in the public system from back -flowing into
development project.
below -grade structures of the proposed development based upon the latest updated sewer
study for the ACSP. Where requested by the City Engineer, sewer improvements shall be
constructed with larger than recommended diameter to maintain the surcharge levels
within the pipe, and the invert elevation of sewer laterals shall be located above the
hydraulic grade line elevation of the surcharge levels when the invert elevation of sewer
laterals are above the pipe crown.
Prior to the approval of
USS -3 Prior to the approval of any street improvement plans within the ACSP that encompass
Public Works Department/
any street improvement
area(s) where Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) will be upsizing trunk lines and/or
Engineering Division
plans.
are making other improvements, the property owner/developer shall coordinate with
OCSD to ensure that backflow prevention devices are installed at the lateral connections
Page 13 of 14
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 312
Timing
Mitigation Measure
Responsible for Monitoring
Completion
to prevent surcharge flow from entering private properties. Proof of such coordination,
such as a letter from OCSD affirming review of proposed pians, shall be provided by the
property owner/developer to the City prior to approval of the street improvement plans.
Page 14 of 14